M RAVI Vs. R PALANI SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Sub Inspector of Police, taken as A5 in C.C. No. 888 of 2009 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for offences under Sections 454, 456, 447, 448, 427, 352, 354 and 506(ii) IPC, seek to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The allegation in the private complaint made by the respondents/complainants, who are relatives, is that R-1 entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with one T.A. Rathod, Managing Director of Trans Medica (India) Limited and also settled 85% of the sale consideration, taking possession of the property; under such circumstances, on the instructions of the first accused, who purchased the property in question in spite of existence of the agreement of sale entered into by Rl and taking possession of the Flat by R-1, other accused including A4/Inspector of Police and the petitioner herein/Sub Inspector of Police trespassed into the flat, assaulted the complainants, dragged them to the police station, falsely registered a case in Crime No. 49 of 2009 and, in the false case, obtained orders for remanding R-l and R-2. The occurrence took place at intervals between 6.2.2009 and 9.2.2009, as a result of which, the complainants were dispossessed from the Flat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 Sub Inspector of Police submits that the complaint jointly preferred by three persons before the learned Magistrate is not maintainable in law, for one individual alone could be the complainant and others would be witnesses, but, in the case on hand, three persons have been shown as complainants and the joint and single complaint given by them cannot be entertained. Referring to the case law Krishnamurthy R. v. M.P. Raja (1989) LW (Crl.) 186, he reiterates that such joint complaint is not valid in the eye of law by drawing attention of this Court to the following observation made therein,