IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No. 10856 of 2023

1. M.CT.P.Muthiah

2. R.Sreedharan ..Petitioners Vs

1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, F4, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

2. M.CT.P. Chidambaram ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No. 152 of 2022 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, F4, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr. C.T. Murugappan For Respondens: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr. A.Kevin Sagaya Lazarns for Mr.E.Hariharan for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.152 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.152 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 457, 380, 406, 408, 120B of IPC. The allegations in the complaint are that the second respondent is one of the Directors of M/s.EMCETE & Sons and was managing the company along with his late father, M.CT.Pethachi, including the office administration and bank transactions. It is further claimed by the second respondent that the office building exclusively belongs to him and that he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years, pursuant to a Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 10.08.2018. According to the second respondent, the second petitioner was employed under his late father and was entrusted with responsibilities such as coordinating with various Government Departments, handling bank accounts and maintaining important company documents. The first petitioner had been residing abroad for several years, during which time, the second respondent and his father were managed the family affairs and properties. It is alleged that upon the illness and subsequent demise of the second respondent’s father on 26.06.2022, the first petitioner returned to India. The second respondent further alleged that the petitioners, in collusion, took advantage of the situation and on the night of the same day, the second petitioner trespassed into the office premises and stole valuable documents worth several crores of rupees.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner and the second respondent are brothers and that the second petitioner is the Manager of the first petitioner. On the demise of their father, viz., M.CT.Pethachi, some of the documents were required to publish the death news. Therefore, the first petitioner instructed the second petitioner, who is none other than the Manager of the first petitioner, to take the documents from their office. Now, the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the office premises and original documents were looted from the office premises. The second respondent filed a suit for declaration along with an application seeking leave to institute the suit and the said application was dismissed and also confirmed the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present FIR is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law. The second respondent is absolutely no title or no right over the subject property and as such, no question of trespass or theft arise. However, without even considering the same, the first respondent mechanically registered the FIR on the complaint lodged by the second respondent on the ground that the office premises was in his possession. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 26.06.2022, as directed by the first petitioner, the second petitioner trespassed into the office premises and looted all the original documents. These are all recorded in the CCTV footage and produced before the