Allegations must have specific details and materials. Quashing of complaint should be an exception. Powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised if allegations do not constitute the offence as alleged.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.43 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tuticorin, now transferred to Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin in C.C.No.1015 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tuticorin and quash the same as against these petitioners/accused.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2015 on the file of the judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tuticorin, now, transferred to Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin in C.C.No.1015 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tuticorin, so far as the petitioners are concerned.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-

(i) The respondent and his brother namely Senraj, were jointly enjoying the property comprised in S.No.116/2 situated in Silukanpatti Village, Pudukkottai. On 02.11.2012, the said Senraj, sold the above said property by including the name of the complainant to one Balamurugan, Chemicals Pvt Ltd through a registered sale deed. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Pudukkottai Police Station, Tuticorin and there was no action. So, he filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin in Cr.MP.No.977/2013 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for a direction. But, it was dismissed on 18.02.2013, holding that it is a civil dispute and thereafter, the respondent filed a revision before this Court, in Crl.RC.No.240/2013. It was also dismissed on 11.01.2014. But, however, liberty was given to file a private complaint.

(ii) In pursuant to the same, the respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.43 of 2015, for the punishable offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120 (b) and 506 (i) IPC and later, it was transferred to learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tuticorin, and renumbered as C.C.No.1015 of 2017.

(iii).In this case, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Seeking quashment of the charge sheet, this criminal original petition is filed.

3. As narrated in the preamble portion, it is seen that there is a dispute between two brothers regarding the property comprised in S.No.116/2 situated in Silukanpatti Village. According to the defacto complainant, his own brother namely, Senraj sold the property to the first accused by including his name by forging and impersonation. For that purpose, according to the defacto complainant, these petitioners were also colluding, abetting and entered into a conspiracy.

4. During the arguments, much argument was advanced on the point whether the present complaint is the second complaint filed by the complainant on the very same set of facts, with that of the petition filed by him under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C, which ended in dismissal and also confirmed by this Court in Cr.RC(MD)No.240 of 2013. As mentioned in the preamble portion, liberty was granted to the defacto complainant to file a private complaint if so advised. According to him, since liberty was granted to him, he filed a private complaint, which is legal.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this has to be construed only as a second complaint, which is not maintainable unless and until new set of facts and materials are placed before the Court. According to him, this complaint is a verbatim reproduction of the earlier petition filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC and so, it has to be construed as a second complaint and for that purpose, he would also say that the petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC must also be construed as a complaint and not an information. But I am going into those aspects for deciding this petition, for the simple reason that the petitioners are the third parties, not only to the complainant and his brother, but, as well as to the property, which was alleged to have been sold by the first a