N.MANOHARAN Vs. G.SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.584 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the 1st respondent had lodged a complaint as against the petitioners and based on the said complaint, FIR has been registered in Cr. No.26 of 2014 and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court quashed the Sec. 420 of IPC and dismissed the petition for other offences. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a final report by closing the case. However, the 1st respondent herein has filed a protest petition and thereafter, calendar case number was assigned and case was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C. No.584 of 2022 for the offences under Ss. 465, 467, 471 and 477(A) read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The trial Court failed to consider the above materials to proceed with the case against the petitioners and after an elaborate investigation, the investigating agency has filed a negative report, but without applying his mind, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Further the learned Magistrate failed to consider that already civil issues are pending between the parties in respect of the land dispute. These petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offences referred in the said case. In the civil suit, in I.A. No.566 of 2012, the learned District Munsif has granted interim injunction and the property has not been classified as Grama Natham Poramboke upto 18/12/1995 till the the first patta was issued to the 1st petitioner's name on 19/12/1995. The 1st respondent without challenging the said order, lodged this false complaint and the matter is purely 'civil in nature'. This petitioner was appointed as Typist in the Revenue department at Madamabakkam, Kancheepuram District on 6/4/1992 and thereafter, on several promotions, he was transferred to Chengalpattu Special Tahsildar Social Security Scheme on 6/10/2014 and thereafter he retired as Personal Assistant to Collector, Chennai on 31/3/2024 and on the date of alleged occurrence, he was not working in the concerned village and false complaint has been lodged by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the pending proceedings are liable to be quashed.