SEENIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.460 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai as against the petitioner, having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 417, 420 of I.P.C. read with 120(b) of I.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are totally two accused and the petitioner is arraigned as A1. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent registered FIR in crime No.122 of 2015 on the allegation that on 10.03.2015, the house property comprised in S.No.70/4 New S.No. 107/3 at Kulamangalam II bit village, Madurai District, classified as Natham to an extent of 1530 sq. ft. belongs to his ancestors' property. The said property stands in the name of his grand father and after his demise, the property goes to his legal heirs, in which, the 2 nd respondent has share admeasuring 510 sq. ft. over the above property. Without his consent and knowledge, the 1st accused sold out his share to the second accused for a sum of Rs.32,130/-.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged occurrence taken place on 01.04.2014. Whereas the complaint has been lodged only on 10.03.2015 and there is absolutely no explanation on the side of the 2nd respondent for lodging the complaint. He further submitted that to attract the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., there is absolutely no averments and no property was entrusted with the petitioner. Insofar as the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of I.P.C. are concerned to attract these offences no specific averments and no materials to file a final report for these offences. Further, the offence under Section 120(b) of I.P.C. also is not made out since there is absolutely no plan between the 1st accused and 2nd accused to agitate the 2nd respondent is being one of their brother. He further submitted that the prior to the sale of the said property, the petitioner caused legal notice to the 2nd respondent, calling upon him that he would sell the property with the consent of other legal heirs, for which, the 2nd respondent also issued reply notice. Since the house situated in the said property was in dilapidated condition and as such, he obtained consent from other legal heirs and sold out the property. Thereafter, the petitioner distributed the sale consideration to the legal heirs including the son of the 2nd respondent herein and even after receipt of the share, he filed this false complaint with the false allegation. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.