1. This petition seeks to call for the records in Crime No.359 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XVII, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. The case is one wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 465 and 120(B) of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case:

The 2nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant namely D.L. Raja has filed a complaint in C.M.P.No.3670 of 2012 before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai against the petitioners herein and 8 others for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. The above complaint was forwarded to the 1st respondent police. The said complaint was registered on 05.07.2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 465, 120(B) of IPC against ten persons.

4. In the above complaint, the first petitioner herein was arrayed as A6 and the second petitioner herein was arrayed as A7. During the argument, the petitioners counsel restricts the prayer in the above Crl.O.P. in so far as these petitioners are concern to quash the Crime No.359 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent. At the time of advancement of argument, the following points were raised by the petitioners counsel:

(i) There is no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.

(ii) The complaint amounts to abuse of process of court.

(iii) No offence is made out against the petitioners as allegedly stated by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

5. The first ground urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that they were permitted by Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao to occupy as tenants in one of the portions situated at No. 147, Santhome High Road, M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai-600 028 since July 2008. After four years the said Dr.D.L.Ramachandra Rao was died intestate as a bachelor. After the death of Dr.D.L.Ramachandra Rao, there are nearly about 10 persons have claimed ownership over the said property. Among the above said persons, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was one among them to claim the said property. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has admitted in his counter in para 7 that the said fact is true that several persons are claiming right over the property. While so, no offence was made out in the FIR as against these petitioners. Therefore the first respondent has no authority to investigate on the said complaint. As per the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in LalithaKumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others, it was held in para 111 that……

“(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of