Allowed

E.Muniyappan v. K.v.Raja, Aged 52 Years

Madras HC6 Feb 2020CRL OP/18931/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash private complaint proceedings regarding property trespass allegations, the Court noted pending civil suits and a related FIR on the same facts. Proceeding ex parte due to the respondent's absence, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palacode, are quashed.

E.Muniyappan Vs K.v.Raja, Aged 52 Years — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.02.2020 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.18931 of 2013 and

¶4

Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶5

1.E.Muniyappan 2.E.Shanmugam 3.E.Nagaraj 4.Chinnasamy 5.K.C.Nagarajan 6.K.Samraj 7.K.Murugan 8.P.Sekar 9.P.Sakthivel 10.K.Murugan 11.K.Rajamanickam 12.P.Madhaiyan 13.Arumugam

¶6

Vs.

¶7

K.G.Raja ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palacode.

¶11

2.The respondent has preferred a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode in C.C.No.99 of 2011 against the petitioners on the allegations that the petitioners were criminally trespassed by arming deadly weapons into the property of the respondent in survey No.605/2B at Kadagadahalli Panchayat to an extent of 2 acres 39 cents. The 1^st petitioner

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

has filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2010 before the learned Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri in the above said disputed property. Thereafter, the accused persons were tried to evict the respondent and hence, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.278 of 2010 for permanent injunction and also filed a criminal complaint before the Inspector of Police, Palacode against the petitioners herein. Due to inaction on the complaint lodged by the respondent dated 22.02.2011, the respondent has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6049 of 2011 for registration of F.I.R. This Court by order dated 14.03.2011 closed the said Criminal Original Petition by stating that F.I.R in Crime No.8 of 2011 has been registered by the Inspector of Police, Palacode. Again due to inaction of the above said crime number, the respondent has preferred the present private complaint, against which the present petition has been filed.

¶14

The respondent has not appeared in this case, despite notice served on the respondent. The names of the respondents have been printed in the cause list, despite the same, there has been no appearance on the side of the respondent. The case is pending from the year 2013, hence adjourning the case for appearance of the respondent would serve no purpose. Hence, this Court propose to proceed with the case on the basis of the materials available and on the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶15

4.On perusal of the records, it reveals that two civil cases are pending before the concerned Court and further the respondent has filed a criminal complaint before the Inspector of Police, Palacode on the same set of allegations and the same is pending in Crime No.8 of 2011. Hence, this Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that a criminal case on the very same issue is pending. For the very same issue of allegation in filing private complaint is unsustainable one.

¶16

5.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palacode is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Assistant Registrar

¶18

// True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

vv2

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

The Judicial Magistrate Court, Palacode.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.Mohideen Basha, Advocate, SR.No.9656.

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.18931 of 2013

¶26

MG(CO) CSR: 05.03.2020

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

E.Muniyappan v. K.v.Raja, Aged 52 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Muniyappan v. K.v.Raja, Aged 52 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Harinatha Reddy Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Manimozhi Vs Mr.K.T.Thambi Arasu

M/S.Preet Remedies Private Ltd. Vs the Drug Inspsector

Kmm Freight Systems Vs J.Michael Manoharan

Elamaran Alias John Elamaran Vs State Rep by

C.Balasubramaniam Vs K.R.Nachimuthu