Since the relief sought for in both the criminal original petitions are one and the same seeking to quash the very same proceedings, they have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. R2 to R5 who are also accused in C.C. No. 80 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram were added as formal parties.

2. Crl.O.P.No.16461 of 2010 has been filed by the Petitioner/A2 and Crl.O.P.No.19966 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioners/A1, A3, A4 and A5, seeking to quash the proceedings, initiated against them, in C.C.No.80 of 2010, pending on the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram for offences u/s 341, 392, 447, 506(i), 120(b) r/w 34 IPC on the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant A.H. Abdul Hameed. Since R2 to R5 in Crl.O.P.No.16461 of 2010 have filed separate quash petition in Crl. O.P. No. 19966 of 2010, R2 to R5 were deleted as per the order of this court dated 18.08.2017 passed in Crl.O.P.No.16461 of 2010.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the Field Manager of M/s. G.V. Films Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the Company), a Public Limited Company and the complaint schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as the property) is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the Company. The Company had appointed the complainant as its Field Manager to take care of and manage the property, wherein he is residing with his family for the past sixteen years. Furthermore, the complainant had also appointed Logaprakasam and Noorul Ameen as the security people for his assistance. Several litigations have been pending including the declaration of title and redemption of mortgage. The property had been mortgaged with the Indian Bank and the Bank has initiated proceedings, under the SARFAESI Act, for recovering its dues and sold the property to some third party in an auction. When such being the position, on 20.05.2009, the second accused along with the other Bank Officers attempted to dispossess the complainant from the property with the help of the local Police. On the same day, the complainant lodged a complaint before the concerned Police and obtained an order of status quo from this Court by filing O.A.Nos.2257 and 2258 of 2009. In the appeals viz., O.S.A.Nos.211 and 212 of 2009, preferred by the Company against the dismissal of the applications filed for injunction, this Court directed the Bank and the parties concerned not to alter the physical features of the property for two weeks. Taking advantage of such situation, on 24.07.2009, at about 07.30 a.m., at the instigation of the second accused, the other accused persons accompanied by several Police Officers, Police Constables, Revenue Officers and several unknown persons forcibly entered into the property by breaking open the locked gate and demanded the complainant to vacate and deliver the possession of the property forthwith to the Bank and attempted to take the articles available in the property. Thereafter, on the warning given by the counsel for the complainant, the property was again locked and sealed by the Police. According to the complainant, the accused had trespassed into the property illegally, constrained the complainant and his family members by threat in order to take away the valuable articles and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 392, 447 and 506(i), 120(b) r/w 34 I.P.C. Seeking to punish the accused for the above said offence, the complainant lodged a private complaint against them, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.80 of 2010. Seeking to quash the said proceedings initiated by the complainant, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Mr. G. Masilamani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is barred under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and he would submit that t