(1.) THE petitioners against whom the respondent had presented a complaint to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, alleging offences under Ss. 147, 148, 447, , 379 and 506 Part II, I.P.C., which had been forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the concerned police, who in turn had registered it as Crime No. 361 of 1985 of Arumanai Police Station for the same offences, invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the above proceedings.
(2.) MR . Anthony Xavier, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the averments in the complaint to the effect, that trespass had been committed and standing trees have been cut and removed, relate to certain items of property regarding which petitioners 1 and 2 had filed a civil suit against the respondent in the Court of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai and that in view of the above civil dispute between the parties regarding the ownership and possession of the identical property, investigation by the police is uncalled for.
(3.) IT is true that this Court is generally reluctant to quash investigation into crimes. The police have a duty to investigate into cognizable offences and merely because a civil litigation, is in some way connected with the issue, criminal investigation cannot be stopped. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, determination of civil rights by the civil forum would be independent of investigation into crimes committed with reference to identical properties. However, this would depend upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the main ingredients of the offences into which an investigation is made, depend upon the determination of civil rights, then it is desirable that the Civil Courts are permitted to decide the issue. Requiring the police to go into complicated questions of civil rights, in order to find out whether the ingredients of the offences are made out, would be beyond the scope of a police investigation into crimes.