IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of property is critical in determining the legality of entry and potential trespass, and delays in lodging FIRs do not necessarily invalidate a prosecution if a prima facie case is established.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No. 1884 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No. 1884 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, seeking for quash of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. In the final report, the allegations levelled against the accused are as follows:

The defacto complainant, namely, Selvi, had entered into an agreement to purchase the house, which belongs to the first accused, namely, Manivarajan, for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and possession was handed over to her. The accused 1 to 3 have started to demand the defacto complainant to vacate the house and hand over the possession. In this background, on 30.09.2021, at about 7.00 PM, while the defacto complainant was in her house, the accused 1 to 3 trespassed into the house and scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and slapped on her face. In continuation of the same, they also threatened her and her family with dire consequences. The final report was filed stating that the accused A1 committed the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. A2 and A3 were charged for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC.

3. Mr.M.Musthafakhan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an enormous delay in lodging the FIR and also the FIR reached the concerned Court very belatedly. Hence, it has to be considered as a malafide complaint in order to prevent the petitioners from claiming the right over the property, which belongs to them. Since there is delay in lodging the FIR and it has been lodged with malafide intention, the same is not valid and liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the house belongs to the petitioners herein and hence, no offence under Section 448 IPC, as stated in the final report, is attracted. Similarly, the other offences are also not attracted since the occurrence had not taken place in a public place. He further submitted that the matter relates to civil dispute and the statement of witnesses were recorded in verbatim without proper investigation by the Investigation Officer and prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

4. Per contra, Mr.S.Manikandan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submits that based on the complaint dated 30.09.2021 received on 02.10.2021, a case in Crime No. 400/2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and the case was investigated and final report was also filed against the accused persons. The statement of witnesses would show that all the offences, as stated in the final report, are attracted and there is no ground to quash the proceedings. He would further submit that A1 and A2 have also separately filed discharge petition before the Trial Court and the same is also pending. Hence, he opposed to quash the proceedings.

5. Notice sent to the second respondent/defacto complainant is awaited. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and perused the records.

6. Admittedly, the property, wherein, the house of the defacto complainant is situated, belongs to the petitioners herein. But they have handed over the possession of the same to the defacto complainant after receiving a huge amount. It is also the case of the prosecution that there is a written agreement permitting the defacto complainant to stay in the house and the statements have also been recorded showing that the accused herein have received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and the defacto complainant was residing i