BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD) No.8187 of 2021 N.R.N. Pandiyan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichy Police Station, Thiruchirapallli District. Cr.No. 489 of 2020.

2. NR.Thiyagarajan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in pursuant to the CC No. 2/2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Karthikeyvenkitachalapathy For Respondents :Mr.S.Ravi(R1)

Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Prabhakar (R2)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.2 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai.

2.The second respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent to the effect that the A1 along with other accused persons trespassed into the subject property and started cutting down the Trees, thereby, 80 Coconut Trees were cut down. When the same was questioned, the second respondent was threatened with dire consequences and he was criminally intimidated. Based on his complaint, a FIR came to be registered in Crime No.489 of 2020 by the first respondent. On completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, as against seven accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 506(2) and 379 IPC.

3.The petitioner, who was arrayed as A1 has filed the present quash petition on the ground that none of the offence is made out against the petitioner.

4.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

5.On carefully considering the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that the family originally owned 60 acres of land with Trees, particularly, Coconut Trees. There are totally three brothers and two sisters, who are entitled for share in the property. One of the co-owner, namely Arumugam died and his wife sold an extent of 15 acres to the petitioner / A1, through a registered sale deed, dated 26.05.2005, registered as Document No. 878/2005. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds.

6.The entire dispute arose, since the petitioner/A1 in his capacity as a co-owner, entered into the land with some of his men and started cutting down the dried Trees and was collecting the wooden logs and it was loaded in the vehicle. This was questioned by the second respondent, which resulted in wordy quarrel and the allegation that the second respondent was criminally intimidated by the petitioner.

7.The main offence that has been put against the petitioner/A1 is the offence of criminal trespass and theft. A1 is admittedly one of the co- owner of the property, since he has purchased an extent of 15 acres from one of the co-owners Arumugam. Hence, petitioner/A1 is not a outsider or a third party and being a co-owner, he has entered the property and has cut down the dried Coconut Trees and collected the wooden logs.

8.It is true that A1 had earlier filed a suit for bare injuntion and it was dismissed and further confirmed in the appeal. Obviously, a suit can never be maintained by a co-owner against the other co-owners seeking for the relief of permanent injuntion, since every co-owner is deemed to be in occupation of every portion of property. Therefore, dismissal of the suit for injuntion filed by A1, by itself cannot go against the right and interest of A1 in his capacity as a co-owner.

9.Continuing with the above stream of thought, the co-owner cannot commit trespass into his own property and cannot commit theft by cutting down Trees, which also forms part of pr