G RAJENDRAN Vs. S M SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein, who are A-5 to A-8 in a private complaint filed viz., P.R. No,28 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427 and 397 read with 402 and 506 (ii) IPC., seek to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE case of the complainant/respondent is that he was running a petty shop in the property belonging to the 4th accused near Attur Bus stop and for purchasing the property, he entered into an agreement of sale with A4 by making advance while so, even while the sale agreement was in existence, the fourth accused clandestinely sold the property to the 2nd accused and on coming to know about the same, the complainant filed a civil suit and obtained an order of injunction and on appeal, the injunction was vacated. Under such circumstances, it is alleged that, when proceedings are pending in court, on 14.12.2000, the petitioners and other accused trespassed into the property, indulged in vandalism and after damaging the shop took away the movables and commodities and when their acts were questioned by the complainant and his family members, they were threatened by the accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, with dire consequences. THErefore, the private complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, who took cognizance of the same observing that a prima facie case has been made out.

(3.) ON perusal of the materials in the light of the submissions made on either side, I find that positive averments are made in the complaint and valid materials available to constitute the offences alleged. The learned Magistrate, after going into the averments and allegations, has come to a conclusion that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offences and proceeded to take cognizance of the complaint. Therefore, when materials are available showing possibility about the commission of the offence and ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons being a matter for trial, I am of the view that the proceedings before the trial court must be allowed to continue. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Since the matter is of the year 2002, the trial court is directed to proceed further and conclude the proceedings at the earliest.