S.A.G.Ramasamy Nadar vs Prema
2021 Latest Caselaw 24485 Mad

                                                                                         Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         Dated: 13.12.2021

                                                                CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                                      Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017
                                                                  and
                                                   Crl.M.P.Nos.7696 & 7696 of 2017

                     S.A.G.Ramasamy Nadar,
                     S/o. Gurusamy Nadar                                             ... Petitioner

                                                       Versus

                     Prema,
                     W/o. Perumal                                                    ... Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

                     to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2017 on

                     the file of Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar and to quash the same.

                                  For Petitioner            :    Ms.Elizabeth Ravi

                                  For Respondent            :   Mr. V.R.Appaswamee




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017


                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private

complaint filed against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Sec.468,

447 and 427 I.P.C., which was taken on file by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Cheyyar in C.C.No.80 of 2017.

2. The crux of allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner is the

owner of adjoining lands to an extent of 1.84 acres, whereas, the

respondent/defacto complainant is the owner of 5 cents. The

respondent/defacto complainant had filed a suit for declaration and

injunction in respect of his 5 cents and similarly, the petitioner herein also

filed a suit seeking for an injunction for an extent of 1.84 acres. The trial

court has granted decree in favour of petitioner in respect of 1.84 acres,

which was also confirmed in A.S.No.326 of 2001. However, it is the

contention of respondent/defacto complainant that decree before the trial

court was obtained fraudulently by not placing proper facts and his further

contention indicates that the accused under the pretext of the decree

frequently visited the property of the respondent/defacto complainant and

causing mental agony, thereby, he has been prosecuted for the offence under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017

Sec.468, 447 and 427 I.P.C.

3. Ms.Elizabeth Ravi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would

submit that the private complaint is nothing, but abuse of process of law and

already the trial court has granted decree in favour of petitioner in respect of

his land i.e. an extent of 1.84 acres. Similarly, the declaration in respect of 5

cents is also granted in favour of respondent/defacto complainant.

Therefore, the present complaint has been filed only to undue the decree and

judgment, which was already confirmed in the appeal. Hence, she prayed for

quashing the complaint.

4. Mr.V.R.Appaswamee, learned counsel appearing for respondent

would submit that though the respondent/defacto complainant is in

possession of 5 cents as declared by the trial court, but still the petitioner is

trying to encroach upon the property. Therefore, he opposed to quash the

complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017

5. Heard submissions of both learned counsel appearing for petitioner

as well as respondent.

6. Perused the entire private complaint. In the complaint, the

allegations appears to be as against the decree and judgement in respect of

1.84 acres in favour of petitioner in O.S.No.196 of 2002 and further

allegation is that suppressing the material facts, the decree has been

obtained. It is relevant to note that the decree and judgement granted by the

trial court has been upheld in the appeal, which is also not disputed.

Similarly, the declaration in respect of 5 cents granted in favour of

respondent/defacto complainant and the same was also confirmed in the

appeal, which is also not in dispute. However, the learned counsel appearing

for respondent would submit that the respondent is in possession of 5 cents

as declared in a civil suit.

7. In such view of the matter, the allegation made in a private

complaint is nothing, but abuse of process of law. It is, in fact, if allowed to

continue, the same will lead to serious consequences to undue the

judgement of the competent civil court. In such view of the matter, this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017

court is inclined to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.80 of 2017, on

the file of Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

13.12.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order rpp

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

rpp

Crl. O.P. No. 11754 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7696 & 7697 of 2017

13.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis