IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.18057 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.11009, 11010 of 2017

D.C.Sureshbabu

...Petitioner/Sole Accused

Versus

1. The State,

Represented by its Inspector of Police,

Thazhambur Police Station,

Chennai 600 130.

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2. P.Arunagiri

… 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the

records relating to C.C.No.127 of 2017, pending on the file of

the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijaya Ganesh

For Respondent : A.Damodaran

No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

For Respondent : Mr.G.P.Kothandaraman

No.2

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.127 of 2017,

which is pending for trial before the Judicial Magistrate-I,

Chengalpattu, has filed the quash petition.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is

none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner. On the

complaint of the petitioner on 08.04.2016, for occurrence, which

was said to have taken place on 06.01.2016, FIR was registered.

Thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

made ready on 20.08.20018 and now, taken on file in C.C.No.127

of 2017 pending trial. Further, his contention is that there are

only five witnesses in this case. LW1 is the defacto complainant

father-in-law, LW2 is the eye witness, LW3 is another eye

witness, who is the wife of LW1, LW4 is the mahazer witness and

LW5 is the Investigating Officer (I.O). He further submits that

LW2 eye witness and LW4 mahazer witnesses have given 164

statement before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu and

their 164 statement is contrary to the 161 statement. Further,

they admitted in the 164 statement that they were not present in

the scene of occurrence. This being the case, proceedings

against the petitioner is unwarranted. Further, similar to it,

the second respondent lodged a complaint on similar ground for

the occurrence, which was said to have been taken place during

the year 2014 and a case in C.C.No.152 of 2015 registered. The

petitioner was a single accused there. The 2nd respondent is the

defacto complainant PW1 in that case. The trial Court, on

considering the evidence, found that it is a motivated complaint

and the petitioner was acquitted, if the complaint is also

similar in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner’s

wife filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.24 of 2017 before the

Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and the Additional

Subordinate Court, by its judgment dated 24.01.2017 ordered the

petitioner to be evicted and now, the 2nd respondent is living

elsewhere.

3.Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the defacto

complainant, who is a senior citizen and retired Army person,

FIR was registered. The accused in this case is non other than

his son-in-law. The property was settled by the defacto

complainant in favour of his daughter. Now, his son-in-law and

daughter joined together put up a construction and now, chased

away the defacto complainant. Further, the defacto complainant’s

valuable articles were damaged and now, he is attempted to be

chased away. The defacto complainant gave a complaint under

Senior Citizens Act and the Civil Suit is also pending. As far

as this case is concerned, on registration of the FIR, the

respondent police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared

observation mahazer, rought sketch, e