P.INDRA @ INDRA MARIMUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.635 of 2013 dated 25.11.2013 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 120(b), 384 and 176 of IPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as an Inspector with the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration department. In the course of her management, she received representation in respect of non payment of rent for temple property. Immediately she had took action by terminating the electricity connection and directed the local body authorities not to issue any property tax receipts and also initiated eviction proceedings by filing petition under Section 78 and 79 of HR&CE Act, 1959, thereby a number of encroachers were evicted and the property belongs to the temple was taken possession by the petitioner. She discharged her duty without any delay and dereliction. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the second respondent is a false one and only with vengeance as against the petitioner, the present complaint has been foisted as against her and two others. He further submitted that the offence under Section 176 I.P.C. has been registered as against the Government servant, that too on private complaint by third party. It is not sustainable in view of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. Insofar as the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner about the losses of valuable by anyone and there is no aggrieved person about the losses and valuable property. Without any complaint from any official, for non compliance of the official duty, the first respondent without even conducting any enquiry mechanically registered the case for the offences under Section 176 as against the petitioner. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of State of UP Vs. Mata Bhikh and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 95, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 in the case of Sh.Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

(3.) Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are totally three accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as third accused. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that one, Arulmigu Senraya Perumal Temple which is under the control of HR& CE Department own landed property in which there are certain encroachers. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the second accused who was working as Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department and the petitionre/ third accused who was working as Inspector of HR&CE Department. But after receipt of the same, they did not take any action as against the encroachers. Further alleged that the accused persons collected rent from the encroachers and did not take any action as against them. Further he would submit that they enquired several persons who are encroachers of the said temple land. Therefore she prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.