Madras High Court
Murugavel vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.8018and 8019 of 2018
Murugavel : Petitioner/A20
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.13 of 2016) : R1/Complainant
2.Sudhakar : R2/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.497
of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.
2, Dindigul and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Abdul Hai
For 1st Respondent : Mr B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.V.Janakiramulu
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC No.No.497 of 2017 pending on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 24/04/2008, the de-facto complainant executed a
power of attorney deed in favour of A1. Using the above
said power of attorney, A1 sold the property measuring
about 1,04,000 sq. feet in TS No.644/1 to various persons,
but later failed to pay the amount in his account. Over
which the above issue, on 24/02/2006, the de-facto
complainant went to the house of the A1 and made an
enquiry. At that time, all the accused persons joined
together, criminally intimidated and prevented him from
moving from that place. Based upon the complaint given by
the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 13 of 2016
was registered for the offences under sections 120(b), 406,
420 and 506(i)IPC and after completing the formalities of
investigation, final report was also filed before the
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul and it was taken
cognizance in C No.497 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed on the ground that bald allegations have been
made against this petitioner over the land dispute, the
property over which, he was provided with the power of
attorney and as per the power of attorney, he sold the
property in 2012. But the complaint was given in 2016. He
purchased the property only in the capacity of the Managing
Director of Dindigul Iron and Hardware Private Limited from
A1. Except that, he has not involved in the above said
affairs. Originally, the de-facto complainant filed a
complaint against this petitioner and others before the
Superintendent of Police, Theni, which was registered in
Crime No.118 of 2013 for the offences under sections
120(b), 420, 506(ii) IPC and it was referred as 'Mistake of
Fact' in 2013 itself. Later, he filed a private complaint
before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul. In respect
of the land issue, a suit in O.S No.33 of 2012 was pending
before the Additional District Court, Dindigul, wherein an
ex-parte decree was passed against the de-facto complainant.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that bald allegations have been made against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
the petitioner and he is noway involved in the above said
issue between the de-facto complainant and the first
accused. According to him, even though allegations made in
the FIR as well as in the final report, even if it is taken
on face value, sections 147, 341, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC are
not attracted.
6.No doubt that the dispute between the de-facto
complainant and A1 started way back in 2010. But what
happened after 2010 till the date of occurrence is not
clear on record. It is mentioned in the grounds of petition
that O.S No.33 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner and
others against the de-facto complainant and that was ex-
parte decree, on 16/02/2017 and the nature of the suit and
decree made available to the court by the petitioner in the
typed set of papers, wherein we find that totally 25
persons have been shown as defendants. It is a suit for
partition filed by one S.Viswanath Kanna and the de-facto
complainant namely Sudhakaran has been shown as the first
defendant and this petitioner has shown as 22nd defendant.
As per the case of the above said S.Viswanath Kanna, the
property belonged to the joint family, in which he got 1/3rd
share and the accused 1 to 5 created power of attorney
deed, which is not valid under law. But later the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
said S.Viswanath Kanna failed to appear, so the case was
dismissed for default. But it was wrongly mentioned that
the de-facto complainant failed to appear, when the case
was decided ex-parte. Actually, it was filed by one
Visvanath Kanna. The de-facto complainant remained ex-
parte. The date of decree and judgment is 16/02/2017 and
this present complaint came to be registered, on 08/06/2016
during pendency of the above said suit.
7.Now whatever may be, the co-accused persons filed
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.15359 and 15499 of 2017 before this court ,
seeking quashment of the same and those persons are also
standing on the very same footing like that of the
petitioner. In the concluding portion of the order, it is
observed like this.
“7.In this case, FIR has been
registered on the direction of the
competent court of law, after satisfying
prima facie case of involvement of the
accused. Whether the accused committed the
offence or not will be decided only after
examining the witnesses and on production
of the documents. At this stage, it is to
be decided whether any prima facie case
was made out or not. On perusal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
records, it reveals that prima facie case
was made out. Hence, the reasons stated by
the petitioners are not acceptable.”
8.So finding the same, it was dismissed. Since the
petitioner is also standing on the very same footing like
that of the petitioner, this court cannot take a different
view. On the judicial principle of comity, this court has
to follow the view that has been taken by the Coordinate
Bench, when no other materials are available to differ from
the view that has been expressed by the Coordinate Bench.
So only on that ground, this petition is liable to be
dismissed.
9.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
30/03/2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18079 of 2018
30/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
