This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., paying to call for the records in C.C.No.439 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur and quash the same.
2.Though notice has been served on the respondent, he has not appeared.
3.It is averred in the petition that the respondent preferred a private complaint as against the petitioners herein as if they committed offence under
Section 323,355 and
506(i) of I.P.C. The petitioners lodged a complaint before the police as against the respondent and the same was registered in Melur Police Station in crime No.69 of 2009, regarding the occurrence that took place on 13.01.2009. The case was also taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate in S.T.C.No.106 of 2009. This private complaint as against the petitioners have been preferred only as a counter blast to the above case given by the petitioners as against the respondent. Prior to filing the private complaint, there was no whisper about the alleged occurrence either to the police or to any other forum. The contents of the complaint itself are contradictory and the offences as alleged by the petitioner are not made out. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2009 as against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
4.As already pointed out, inspite of service, the respondent has not appeared before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the private complaint has been filed only as a counter blast to the case alleged as against the respondent by the petitioners and the contents of the complaint itself are contradictory and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioners is to be quashed.
6.This Court perused the private complaint filed by the respondent and also the other papers filed by the petitioners in this criminal original petition.
7.The petitioners lodged a complaint before the police with respect to the occurrence that took place on 30.01.2009 and the same was registered by the Melur Police in crime No.69 of 2009 and the Judicial Magistrate also took the case on file in S.T.C.No.106 of 2009.
8.The private complaint has been filed by the respondent only on 05.03.2009. There is no whisper in the private complaint that he lodged any complaint with respect to the alleged occurrence of 29.01.2009 before the police. From the recitals of the private complaint, it is clear that the respondent has presented the private complaint for the first time before the Court on 05.03.2009. Since the private complaint has been filed subsequent to the registration of the case against the respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioners, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private complaint has been filed only to take vengeance as against the petitioners is acceptable.
9.The recitals of the complaint also disclose that there is dispute with respect to the common pathway. In one paragraph, the respondent/complainant says that the petitioners obstructed the common pathway and in the subsequent paragraph, he says that the petitioners entered into the disputed patta land of the complaint. Therefore, the respondent/complainant has not filed the private complaint with clean hands. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that filing of private complaint is nothing but, in order to take vengeance and it is purely abuse of process of Court.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.439 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
.