O RDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.53 of 2021 filed for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 130, 465, 506(i), 120A, 420 and 435 IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners in the capacity of President of the Farmers Association and Village Forest Council respectively, along with others, though they are not the owners of any of the land/kanmois, executed sale agreements/sale deeds to sell the property ie., lands and kanmois around their village and also threatened the local public and hence, a complaint has been preferred by the respondent; a case has been registered in Crime No.4/2013 and earlier the petitioners filed petition before this Court to quash the FIR and the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the FIR was closed as Mistake of Fact. Subsequently, on the private complaint given by the respondent, the trial court has taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.53/2021 under Sections 147, 130, 465, 506(i), 120A, 420 and

435 IPC, for quashing the same, the petitioners are before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no materials whatsoever available with the respondent to show that the petitioners have indulged in selling of the property. In the absence of any documents, the complaint itself seems to be preferred with ulterior motive in order to implicate the petitioners. He would further submit that merely because the respondent files a complaint, it does not mean that the petitioners have indulged in the alleged act of selling the public property and that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged and they have been falsely implicated. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for allowing this petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges against the petitioners have to be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if they are subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to them to put forth their defence. The petitioners cannot be let by quashing the charges framed against them as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against him. Useful reference in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426)

wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which we have extracted illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an