The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint must disclose the essential elements necessary for the offence, and the absence of such elements can lead to the quashing of the FIR as an abuse of process of law.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as A5 and A6 in Crime No.282 of 2017. He submitted that one Joseph Raj was alloted the disputed property through a registered partition deed among his brothers on 12.11.1914. In turn, he sold out the said property in favour of one Koulanthini on 04.09.2002 and registered as document No.3435 of 2002. Thereafter, the said Koulanthini and the petitioners entered into registered sale agreement dated 20.01.2003 to purchase the said property. On 11.04.2003, the petitioners purchased the said property for valid sale consideration of Rs.20,04,450/- and registered as Document No.2165 of 2003. In this regard, one Alexander Joseph, who shown as A7 in the present FIR, lodged a complaint on 19.07.2003, against the petitioners' vendor and others. He also filed a suit in O.S.No.508 of 2003 before the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry against the petitioners and obtained an order of status-quo in respect of disputed property.

2.1. While being so, the defacto complainant/second respondent herein trespassed into the disputed property with goondas, as such the petitioners lodged a complaint on 11.03.2007. The petitioners also filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, as against the second respondent and his brother, in respect of the very same disputed property and also obtained interim injunction. In fact, the complaint lodged by the petitioners referred under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., to the Executive Magistrate and after conducting enquiry the Executive Magistrate directed the parties to approach civil Court and also ordered to maintain status-quo in respect of the disputed property. Thereafter, by the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007, the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.374 of 2007, allowed and granted permanent injunction as against the second respondent.

2.2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on the complaint lodged by one Alexander Joseph the charge sheet laid in C.C.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, in which the petitioners have been shown as witnesses, since they were bonafied purchaser and no materials were found as against the petitioners to add them as accused. Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the District Registrar passed an order dated 05.10.2015, thereby cancelled the document registered in favour of the petitioners and as against which the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.33680 of 2015 and obtained an interim order of stay and the writ petition is still pending before this Court.

2.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that suppressing the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent filed a direction petition in Crl.O.P.No.20028 of 2016 and obtained police protection by an order dated 19.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.12131 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.20028 of 2016 and by an order dated 18.11.2016, the said police protection order was recalled by this Court. 2.4. Thereafter, the said Alexander Joseph filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add the petitioners as accused in C.C.No.43 of 2009, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. In the said application the Investigation Officer, CBCID, Puducherry filed counter and categorically stated that the petitioners are bonafied purchasers, as such no material found as against them to add them as accused. Therefore, by an order dated 03.07.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dismissed the