These petitions have been filed by A1 and A2 in CC No.338 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai, seeking to quash the final report filed by the first respondent.

2. The complaint was originally given by one Vinoth John Prakash, who was the Manager of Dr. S. Guru Sankar. He died during the pendency of these petitions and in his place Dr. S. Guru Sankar substituted himself as a party. The said Dr. S. Guru Sankar and S. Ramesh, who is A1 in the above CC, are brothers and they are the sons of Dr. N. Sethuraman.

3. The complaint was lodged by the Manager of Dr. S. Guru Sankar on 16.04.2016 to the first respondent Police to the effect that on 16.04.2016, at about 9.00 am A1 along with 3 other persons came to the property belonging to Dr. S. Gurushankar along with a Tractor and JCB machine and committed trespass into the property and threatened those present in the property and also caused damages to the property. On the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.573 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 447 and 506(ii) IPC. Subsequently, the case was taken for investigation and 11 witnesses were examined by the 1st respondent and a final report came to be filed on 04.08.2016 against 4 persons for the offences under Section 447, 427 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 IPC. The said final report is the subject matter of challenge in these petitions.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ajmal Khan, appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 9083 of 2017 made the following submissions :

- The 2nd respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner had an ill will against him and there are 4 civil suits in OS Nos.224 of 2010, 14 of 2011, 320 of 2011 and 60 of 2015 that are pending between the parties with regard to the trusteeship in SR Trust and therefore the 2nd respondent had motive to foist a false case against the petitioner, who is his brother and the entire complaint is the result of mala fide, on the part of the 2nd respondent, who has maliciously instituted the proceedings with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

- The complaint was initially given through an employee of Dr. S. Gurushankar and after his death Dr. S. Gurushankar himself has come into the picture in order to persecute the petitioner.

- A reading of the final report would clearly show that no offence has been made out as against the petitioner.

- No offence has been made out under Section 447 IPC, since the land question is situated right in front of the petitioner’s house and he only cleaned the bushes including Seemai Karuvelam (Prosopis Juli Flora), garbage, medical waste and rubbish in the said land with an impression that the land belongs to Maha Seemam Trust, wherein his father is the President and with the knowledge of his father. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that to attract the provision of Section 441, an entry into the property must be with an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, annoy any person in possession of the property. Since the petitioner did not enter into the property with any of these intentions, the ingredients of the criminal trespass is not attracted in this case and therefore no offence is made out under Section 447 of IPC.

- The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the offence under Section 427 is also not made out in this case, since the petitioner did not commit any mischief in the property and did not cause any loss or damage to the property and he had merely cleared the Seemai Karuvelam trees, garbage, medical waste and rubbish in the property, which according to the petitioner belongs to the Trust run by this father.

- The learned Senior Counsel submitted that an offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC has also not been committed in this case, since to constitute an offence in the said provision, a mere threat is not enough and there must be an act in pursuance to