made ready on 20.08.20018 and now, taken on file in C.C.No.127 of 2017 pending trial. Further, his contention is that there are only five witnesses in this case. LW1 is the defacto complainant father-in-law, LW2 is the eye witness, LW3 is another eye witness, who is the wife of LW1, LW4 is the mahazer witness and LW5 is the Investigating Officer (I.O). He further submits that LW2 eye witness and LW4 mahazer witnesses have given 164 statement before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu and their 164 statement is contrary to the 161 statement. Further, they admitted in the 164 statement that they were not present in the scene of occurrence. This being the case, proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted. Further, similar to it, the second respondent lodged a complaint on similar ground for the occurrence, which was said to have been taken place during the year 2014 and a case in C.C.No.152 of 2015 registered. The petitioner was a single accused there. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant PW1 in that case. The trial Court, on considering the evidence, found that it is a motivated complaint and the petitioner was acquitted, if the complaint is also similar in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner’s wife filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.24 of 2017 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and the Additional Subordinate Court, by its judgment dated 24.01.2017 ordered the petitioner to be evicted and now, the 2nd respondent is living elsewhere.
