ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.54 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-

The first petitioner is the father of the second petitioner. A dispute of water right for the agriculture land is existing between the petitioners and the first respondent.

3. Contents of the complaint filed by the first respondent is briefly as follows:-

On 13.11.2016, the first petitioner gave a complaint before the second respondent stating that on 13.11.2016, the respondent attacked the first petitioner with aruval. But, actually on the date mentioned in the complaint, the first respondent was taking treatment in Pilroth Hospital, Chenni, as inpatient. Since the complaint was found to be false, the respondent police closed the same as 'mistake of fact'.

4. On the earlier occasion also, i.e., 2015 with the instigation of the petitioners herein, one Kannan gave a false complaint against the first respondent herein. The case was registered in Crime No.361 of 2015 for the punishable offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 324 of IPC.

5. Again on 10.12.2016, the petitioners have given another false complaint before the second respondent stating that the first respondent assaulted the injured in a road accident, by name Palaniappan. But, later, that was also closed. The petitioners and his party are continuously gave false complaints against the first respondent. So, on 20.09.2016, the first respondent lodged a complaint before the second respondent. But, no action was taken.

6. On 22.02.2017, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirumayam and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.54 of 2017.

7. Seeking quashment of the complaint, this petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the accused before the Trial Court, mainly on the ground that none of the ingredients mentioned in the offences alleged against the petitioners are attracted. No special allegations are levelled and the complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioners.

8. On the side of the petitioner written submissions were filed.

9. The main ground on which this petition is filed is that none of the allegations mentioned in the petition or in the compliant attract any of the provisions of Indian penal code and moreover, no particulars have been given in the compliant about the offences.

10. Reading of the complaint shows that the complainant / the respondent herein wants the court to take action against the petitioners on the ground that repeatedly they have filed false complaints against him, as a result of which, he suffered. As mentioned in the compliant, the first allegation is that even though the first respondent was admitted in Bilroth Hospital Chennai on 3.11.2016, a false complaint has been given stating that he attacked the petitioners. The police made an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the compliant is false and so, no action was taken.

11. The next incident, according to the petitioners is that, on 10.12.2016, an accident took place involving one Palaniapan, the first respondent admitted him in the hospital, when he was in unconscious stage. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioners, lodged a false complaint against the first respondent stating that he attacked him. So, according to the first respondent, repeated complaints, which were false and false to knowledge of the petitioners have been made only to harass the respondent.

12. The petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the court provided under section 156 (3) of criminal procedure code. But when the court called for the records from the trial court it is found that the trial court took cognizance of the offence on recording the statement of the complainant / respondent and his witnesses herein on 19.4.2017. The offences which were taken cognizance by the trial court are under section 182 and section 193 of Indian Pena