LAKSHMANAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.465 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Court for Politicians cases (MP and MLA) at Chennai. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.3751 of 2019 is arraigned as 14 th accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.3756 of 2019 are arraigned as 2 to 13, 15 and 16th accused.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases submitted that the complaint lodged alleging that the defacto complainant and his brother are running a jewellry shop in the name of Coimbatore jewelers at 1 st Agraharam, Salem Town for the past seven years. They purchased a land ad measuring 12676 Sq.ft from one Mallikeshwary in the year 1993 by way of two registered sale deed in document Nos. 31/1993 dated 13.01.1993 and 119/1993 dated 30.01.1993, situated in between the Salem new bus stand main road and Angalamman colony. While being so, the first accused (deceased) compelled the defacto complainant and his brother to execute a sale deed in favour of the third accused in respect of 1267 Sq.ft., in the total extend purchased by them. The said land laid an access to the main road from Angalammal colony. They refused to sell the property and as such, the accused 3 to 7 threatened them with dire consequences. Further alleging that the accused persons threatened them that they would foisted false case against them as if they had received stolen jewels and that would be published in the news paper. On 06.10.2008, the accused persons had conspired together with intention to grab the said land and trespassed into the subject land with wooden log and also threatened the defacto complainant and his brother. Hence the defacto complainant/second respondent lodged complaint and registered in Crime No.41 of 2011 and charge sheet also filed for the offence under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 447, r/w 109, 352, 352 r/w 109, 506(ii) r/w 109, 386, 386 r/w 109, 307, 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act, 1994. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem have taken cognizance for the said offences in S.C.No.231 of 2018 and thereafter transfered to the Special Court for politicians cases (MP and MLA), Chennai and renumbered as S.C.No.465 of 2018.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are the accused A2 to A16 in S.C.No.465 of 2018 and they are charged for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 447, r/w 109, 352, 352 r/w 109, 506(ii) r/w 109, 386, 386 r/w 109, 307, 307 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act, 1994. The first accused was then Minister and he is no more. The charges as against the accused persons are that they threatened the second respondent with dire consequences to his life and trespassed into the property belonging to the second respondent and committed very serious offence, using the power of the first accused. Though compromise entered into between the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed, since the offence involved in moral turpitude, grave and serious offence and it cannot be quashed, since it is harmful effect on society and it is not restricted to two individuals or groups. He relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.336 of 2019 in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another. By citing this judgment he further submitted that while quashing the complaint or charge sheet on compromise memo, it has to be seen the previous antecedents of the accused persons and it is essential factors while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.