Karunakaran, M/A 69, v. State Rep.By The Station House
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.08.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.Nos.288 & 289 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
1. Karunakaran
2. Vasanthy
3. Umarani @ Janakavalli
4. Akila alias Parvathi
...Petitioners in Crl.R.C.288/2014
1. Karunakaran
2. Vasanthy
3. Jothi Senthil Kannan
...Petitioners in Crl.R.C.289/2014
Vs.
State represented by, The Station House Officer, C.I.D. Police Station, Puducherry.
... Respondent in both the revisions Prayer in both the revisions: The Criminal Revisions filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the orders of dismissal of discharge petitions in Cr.M.P.No.555 of 2012 in C.C.No.68 of 2011 & Cr. M.P.No. 554 of 2012 in C.C.No.69 of 2011 respectively dated 10.10.2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Natarajan - in both the revisions For Respondent : Mr.S.Devi Govt. Advocate (Pondicherry) - in both the revisions COMMON ORDER These criminal revisions have been filed against the orders of dismissal of discharge petitions in Cr.M.P.No.555 of 2012 in C.C.No.68 of 2011 & Cr.M.P.No.554 of 2012 in C.C.No.69 of 2011 respectively dated 10.10.2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magisterial, Puducherry.
The revision petitioners are accused in the above criminal cases. They filed petitions in Cr.M.P.Nos.554 & 555 of 2012, seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petitions by order dated 10.10.2012.
Aggrieved against the order of dismissal of the discharge petitions dated 10.10.2012, the accused in both the cases have preferred these criminal revisions before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that the defacto complainant had already filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.796 of 2003 and 834 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, on 10.11.2003 for the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. Now, suppressing the above fact, he filed complaints against the petitioners, narrating the averments made in the plaint of the above civil suits, which is nothing, but, abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases.
The respondent police, without investigating the matter properly, had filed a final report before the Court for the offences under Sections 423, 467, 468 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate without considering the materials produced by the petitioners/accused, had dismissed the petitions filed by them, seeking discharge, which warrants interference of this Court.
The learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners/accused had been enjoying the suit properties by fabricated documents, without any legal right. The learned Magistrate, since there is prima facie case to proceed the case against the accused, had dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners/accused.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) appearing for respondent police and perused the materials available on record. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the allegations made in the complaints were already avered in the civil suits filed by the defacto complainants in O.S.Nos.796 of 2003 and 834 of 2008, which are pending before the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry for the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The allegations made in the complaint are civil in nature and the defacto complainant had given criminal color to the civil dispute. The right of the parties shall be decided in the civil suits, which are pending. Hence this Court is of the view that the petitioners/accused shall be discharged from the above criminal cases, since the allegations are civil in nature and already civil suits are pending, arising out of the very same allegations made in the complaints.
In the result, these criminal revisions are allowed and the petitioners are hereby discharged from the above criminal
cases by setting aside the orders dated 10.10.2013 made in Cr.M.P.No.555 of 2012 in C.C.No.68 of 2011 & Cr.M.P.No.554 of 2012 in C.C.No.69 of 2011 dated 10.10.2013 by the learned Chief Judicial Magisterial, Puducherry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cgi To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3. The Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Puducherry +2ccs to Mr.R.Natarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.59088 & 59089 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 55848 Crl.R.C.Nos.288 & 289 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 MP(CO) rrs 26/10/2018