3.Considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of records shows that in the complaint itself, the second respondent has fairly submitted that one Valli W/o.Arumugam, mother of Sabapathi was died on 04.12.2009. They want to bury the body of Valli where her husband Arumugam has been buried. A-1/Radhakrishnan, first petitioner has informed the same to the Village Administrative Officer stating that it is his patta land. The Village Administrative Officer has directed not to bury the same, since that the property is not a place denoted for burial ground and it is only a patta land. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that already, there is a civil dispute between the parties and a suit in O.S.No.176 of 2006 is also pending. In such circumstances, instead of giving proper advice to the parties, they filed a complaint. Since the dispute is between the relatives and the Village Administrative Officer has taken a wrong presumption that the property is a Government Poromboke, and gave complaint on the basis, case was registered, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. So, it is a fit case to quash the same. Hence, I am inclined to quash S.T.C.No.71 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Ramanathapuram.
