Madras High Court
D.C.Sureshbabu vs The State on 24 February, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11009, 11010 of 2017
D.C.Sureshbabu ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State,
Represented by its Inspector of Police,
Thazhambur Police Station,
Chennai 600 130.
2. P.Arunagiri ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to
C.C.No.127 of 2017, pending on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijay Aganesh
For Respondent : A.Damodaran
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.G.P.Kothandaraman
No.2
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.127 of 2017, which is
pending for trial before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, has filed
the quash petition.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is none other than the father-in-
law of the petitioner. On the complaint of the petitioner on 08.04.2016,
for occurrence, which was said to have taken place on 06.01.2016, FIR
was registered. Thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, charge
sheet was 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
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.
3.Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that on the complaint of the defacto complainant, who is a
senior citizen and retired Army person, FIR was registered. The accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
in this case is non other than his son-in-law. The property was settled by
the defacto complainant in favour of his daughter. Now, his son-in-law
and daughter joined together put up a construction and now, chased away
the defacto complainant. Further, the defacto complainant’s valuable
articles were damaged and now, he is attempted to be chased away. The
defacto complainant gave a complaint under Senior Citizens Act and the
Civil Suit is also pending. As far as this case is concerned, on registration
of the FIR, the respondent police visited the scene of occurrence,
prepared observation mahazer, rought sketch, examined the witnesses
presence in the scene of occurrence, statement of LW1 to LW4 recorded,
charge sheet was filed listing LW1 to LW5 along with the documents.
The points raised by the petitioner as factual in nature, it has to be
decided in trial.
4.The learned counsel for second respondent /defacto complainant
submits that the property was settled by way of a settlement deed in
favour of his daughter. The petitioner being his son-in-law, now, taking
advantage of old age and the defacto complainant was physically harmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
and chased away from the property. Not only that a criminal complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as has been filed in
C.C.No.9387 of 2014 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track –
2) Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai-3 and that, the defacto complainant is
being harassed.
5. This Court finds the points raised by the petitioner are factual in
nature, it is to be decided during the trial and the petitioner and the
defacto complainant are none other then the father-in-law and son-in-law.
In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Finding
that the case is pending from the year 2017 without any progress and the
trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No 24.02.2022
jd/sms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
To
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Chengalpattu.
2. The State,
Represented by its Inspector of Police,
Thazhambur Police Station,
Chennai 600 130.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
jd/sms
Crl.O.P.No.18057 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11009, 11010 of 2017
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
