The central legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of the law in implicating an advocate in a case without sufficient evidence or justification.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No. 129 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dindigul and quash the same as against the petitioner.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No. 129 of 2018, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dindigul and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No. 129 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Dindigul. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, F.I.R. came to be registered in Cr. No. 450 of 2010, on the file of the Dindigul Town West Police Station, for the offences under Sections 147, 454, 360, 341 and 506(i) I.P.C. against 5 persons including the petitioner. The first respondent, after completing investigation, has laid the final report dated 12.07.2010, for the offences under Sections 147, 454, 341 and 506(i) I.P.C. against 5 persons including the petitioner and the case was taken on file in C.C. No. 408 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dindigul. It is not in dispute that since the petitioner was shown as absconding accused and after filing of the charge sheet, NBW was issued and pending, the case as against two persons including the petitioner, was ordered to be split up from the mother case in C.C. No. 408 of 2010 and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 129 of 2018.

3. Admittedly, the accused Kalavathi and the defacto complainant's wife Chitra are sisters and are the daughters of one Seenivasan and his wife Janaki. It is not in dispute that the said Seenivasan was owning some properties including the property in dispute, that while the said Seenivasan was alive, he had settled some properties to his daughters and effected a family arrangement, that subsequently the said Seenivasan had died on 16.07.2006 leaving behind his wife and two daughters and that thereafter, the mother Janaki had died on 16.10.2009. It is also not in dispute that during the life time of mother Janaki, the defacto complainant's wife Chitra and her family members were residing in the property in dispute along with her mother Janaki and after the death of the said Janaki, disputes arose between the sisters and as a result of which, the accused Kalavathy has filed three civil suits in O.S. Nos. 65 of 2009, 89 of 2009 and 277 of 2010 against the defacto complainant's wife Chitra and that the defacto complainant has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 195 of 2010 against the said Kalavathi and her husband.

4. Considering the above, it is very much clear that there existed property dispute between the accused Kalavathi's family and the defacto complainant's family and consequently Court proceedings.

5. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the Courts at Dindigul and he is the Counsel on record for the accused Balaguru and Leelavathy. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2010 at about 06.00 p.m. when the defacto complainant and his family members went to Trichendur, all the five accused broke open the door of the defacto complainant's house, trespassed into the house and had stolen Rs. 1,00,000/- cash, one Laptop and some documents, that when the defacto complainant and his wife returned to their home from Trichendur, they were prevented from entering into their house and that the accused Leelavathi and Balaguru had caused criminal intimidation.

6. As already pointed out, it is pertinent to note that originally F.I.R. came to be registered for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 454, 380, 341 and 506(i) I.P.C. The first respondent, after initial investigation, has altered the case from the offences under Sections 147, 454, 380, 341 and 506(i) I.P.C. into Sections 147, 454, 341 and 506(i) I.P.C. and submitted the alteration report dated 22.04.2010 before the juris