BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14047 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD)No.7364 of 2021 Gnanasekaran ... Petitioner/ Sole Accused Vs.

1.The State rep by the The Inspector of Police, Maraneri, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

(In Crime No.96 of 2021) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2.Seenivasan ... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to charge sheet in C.C.No.34 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivakasi and quash the same as illegal.

For petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi

O RDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.34 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivakasi.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.04.2021, at about 05.00 p.m, the petitioner trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and damaged the boundary stones and the gate worth about Rs.68,000/-. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereby, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No.96 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 427 and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivakasi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.34 of 2021. Challenging the same, present petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter of the property is originally belonged to one Ayyanathan. He is the absolute owner of the property. He has 3 sons namely, Vijayasekaran, Gnanasekaran and Dhanasekaran. The petitioner herein and one of the vendors of the defacto complainant namely, Vijayasekaran are the sons of the above said Ayyanathan. The alleged property is an undivided joint family property. The petitioner herein is one of the coparcener of the said property. The petitioner along with his siblings / vendors of the defacto complainant have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property till date. In such circumstances, the said Vijayasekaran along with one Rajam and Sivashankar fabricated the documents as if there was some family arrangements on 23.08.2017. On the strength of the same, they sold the properties to the defacto complainant comprised in S.Nos.1352/1B, 1352/2A and 1352/2B. Without knowing the same, on 26.04.2021, at about 05.00 p.m, when the petitioner went to the above said property for making some maintenance work, the defacto complainant objected the same by stating that he is the owner of the property. Thereafter only, the petitioner came to know about the above said forged family arrangement dated 23.08.2017. Thereafter, the vendors of the defacto complainant filed a declaration suit in O.S.No. 69 of 2018 before the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur with suppression of truthful facts. During the pendency of the suit, the alleged properties were sold to the defacto complainant on

09.02.2021 vide Document No.1535/2021.

4. He further submitted that no offence is attracted against the petitioner since the alleged property is an undivided joint family properties and the petitioner herein is one of the coparcener of the said property. The defacto complainant has purchased the property having fully knowledge that the property is the joint family property. Already, a civil dispute is pending between the parties.

5.The leanred counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that he purchased the properties comprised in S.Nos.1352/1B, 1352/2A and 1352/2B from one Vijayasekaran on 09.02.2021 vide Documen