DAWOODKHAN Vs. STATE REP. BY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.239 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai. The petitioner is the sole accused and he stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: One Mrs.Vairamani was the owner of the landed property in Re- Survey No.56/3H, to an extent of 5 cents at Vilangudi Village, Madurai. The second respondent, who is none other than the father of the said Vairamani and her power of attorney, has given a complaint alleging that, the petitioner/accused, is an adjacent house site owner in Re-Survey No.56/3I, and the petitioner encroached the second respondent property to an extent of 97 square metres. When the second respondent questioned the same, the petitioner disputed it. Hence, the second respondent measured the property with the help of a Surveyor and confirmed that there was an encroachment to an extent of 97 Square metres. Then, he approached the petitioner, and the petitioner also agreed that, he has encroached the property and he promised him to provide alternate site or pay the cost of the land. But, he failed to keep up his promise. Thereafter, the second respondent has given a complaint before the District Crime Branch Police, Madurai, and an enquiry has been conducted by them, wherein, the petitioner has admitted that he has encroached the second respondent property and also promised to give alternate site. But, he failed to provide alternate site. In the above circumstances, the complaint has been filed before the first respondent police. Based on that, a First Information Report was registered for the offences under Sections 447, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a final report has been filed, which was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and now, pending trial in C.C.No.239 of 2013. To quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent regarding the alleged encroachment of the second respondent property. The second respondent, based on some measurement made by a Surveyor, in his absence, claimed that the petitioner has encroached his property. The petitioner purchased the property in the year 1990, thereafter, he has obtained a planning permission from the Local Body in the year 1991 and put up a construction in the year 1993, and residing therein. Now, after 20 years, the second respondent filed a complaint as if the petitioner has encroached his property. Even assuming that the petitioner has encroached his property, it is only a civil dispute between the parties, the only remedy available to him is to approach the Civil Court concerned, and he cannot give a criminal flavour to the civil dispute and file the present complaint.