The need for prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused and the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.265 of 2018, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No. 265 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai and quash the same.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 9 in C.C.No.265 of 2018, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. The respondent was the President of Manapparai Naidu Mahajana Sangam at the time of filing of the above complaint. The case of the complainant is that the second accused Santha, after becoming the President of Manapparai Municipality, his son - the first accused and others had conspired together and created forged records to grab the property of the said Sangam situated in Town S.No.76, Old Survey No.573/4. A complaint was lodged by the respondent and on that basis, F.I.R came to be registered in Cr.No.8 of 2014, for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) I.P.C., on the file of the Land Grabbing Cell, Trichy. Subsequently, the first accused, by falsely claiming to be the Honorary President of the said Sangam, had received Rs.12,00,000/- from the tenants in the property of the Sangam and was collecting rents. Hence, the respondent has preferred another complaint and on that basis, another F.I.R. came to be registered in  Cr.No.475 of 2016 against ten persons including the petitioners for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 109 I.P.C., on the file of the Manapparai Police Station.

3. The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, after completing the investigation in Cr.No.475 of 2016, has filed the final report as action dropped, mainly on the ground that similar complaint with respect to the very same property was pending, on the file of the Land Grabbing Cell, Trichy. The respondent/complainant has filed a protest petition in Cr.M.P.NO.2251 of 2017 and the learned Magistrate has passed an order dated 06.06.2017, directing the concerned police to conduct further investigation by collecting documents from the case pending before the Anti-Land Grabbing Cell and to file a final report within a period of eight weeks. Since the final report was not filed within the time frame stipulated, the respondent/complainant has filed a contempt petition in Cr.M.P.No.593 of 2018 and the learned Magistrate, after considering the petition and other records, passed an order directing the Inspector General of Police to take disciplinary action against the said Inspector of Police. Since no action was taken, the respondent has filed another application in Cr.M.P.No.1937 of 2018 for initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned Inspectors of Police and Inspector General of Police. Since the Inspector General of Police has already initiated departmental action against the concerned Inspector of Police and final report was also filed, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said petition, vide order dated 25.08.2018.

4. As already pointed out, in the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police has filed the second final report in connection with the case in Cr.No.475 of 2016, dropping further action. The respondent/complainant, after the receipt of the RCS notice, has filed another protest petition in Cr.M.P.No.5312 of 2018. The learned Magistrate, after recording sworn statement of the respondent and after enquiry, has passed an order dated 28.12.2018 for taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners/accused under Sections 419, 420, 421, 468 and 471 I.P.C., and ordered issuance of summons to the said accused and accordingly, C.C.No. 265 of 2018 was taken on file on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the