MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai District for the offences under Sections 294(b),323 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was previous enmity between the petitioners and the second respondent regarding land dispute the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the respondent police, based on the complaint, the first respondent police registered a case against these petitioners in Crime No.67 of 2018 for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C., subsequently, the first respondent filed a final report and altered the sections as 294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002. He would further submit that the second respondent uncle, namely, Ramalinga Goundar had purchaed the property in respect of Old S.No.84/10, new S.No.74/10B measuring 2.5 cents situated in Kenjampatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, through a registered sale deed Doc. No. 966/1981 dated 19.06.1981 and Doc. No.1136/1984 dated 11.10.1984, but the second respondent's husband and his brother's names were wrongly included in the Patta of the petitioners aforesaid property. Hence, they prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2019.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that after lodging of the complaint they examined witnesses and recorded statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and the statements recorded by them corroborated with each other and the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 would attract as against the petitioners. He would also submit that they are about to take the trial in C.C.No. 10 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur. Therefore they sought for dismissal of the quash petition.