USHA ADELIN Vs. SATHIADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in C.C.No.198 of 1988 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. On a private complaint instituted by the respondent, they were summoned by the trial Magistrate to answer a charge for an offence under Sec.500, I.P.C. THE summons issued mentions only a single offence, though the complaint had been filed for offences under Secs.182, 211 and 500 read with 109, I.P.C. however, even initially, it is brought to my notice by Mr.Byravan, learned counsel for the respondent, by producing a certified copy of the diary extract made on 10.11.1988 relating to this calendar case on the file of the trial Magistrate which reads as follows:

(2.) THE basis for this prosecution is as follows: THE respondent lives in Door No.64-B, Nesa Illam, Vadassery Village at Nagercoil. Petitioners 1 and 2 are constructing a house behind door No.64-B. Since the sun shade in the house of petitioners 1 and 2 encroached on the respondent�s property, petitioners 1 to 3 demolished the compound wall and the cattle shed belonging to the respondent, resulting in a lose of Rs.5,000/- to the latter. In view of the aforementioned dispute, the respondent filed a suit before the District Munsif, Nagercoil, against petitioners 1 to 3. It is the allegation in the complaint that due to this animosity, with a vengeance actuated by malice as a result of preplanning by petitioners 2 and 3 with the help of petitioners 4 and 5 through the first petitioners, they had a complaint preferred against the respondent before the Central Crime branch of the Nagercoil police station, resulting in Crime No.133 of 1988 being registered against him for offences under Secs.379 and 457, I.P.C. THE further allegation in the complaint is that the first petitioner at the instigation of petitioners 2 to 5, knowing fully well that the averments in the complaint were contrary to truth, had still preferred the complaint, utilising the services of her father, the third petitioner, who is a Stenographer in the Police Department. THE complaint further narrates that since the offences alleged were non-bailable, apprehending arrest, he had to hide himself before he could get himself released on anticipatory bail. According to the complaint, the allegation in the F.I.R., in Crime No.133 of 1988, that solely he was suspected to be the thief with the help of his henchmen, was not only false but was false to the knowledge of the first petitioner. THE imputations had been made out of malice, solely with a view to defame the respondent. In the sworn statement apart form narrating the prior disputes and the pending civil litigation, the complainant had deposed that, on the day occurrence, after the F.I.R. was registered, in his absence, the police officials came to his house and the third petitioner told the persons who had gathered that he will teach a lesson to the respondent by keeping him in jail at least for a month. This answer by the third petitioner was to an enquiry as to what had happened. Soon thereafter, the police officials left the scene, after directing the wife of the respondent to send her husband to the police station on his arrival.

(3.) MR.K. Mohanram, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterates the aforementioned grounds taken in the petition for quashing.