P.Lakshmanan, Aged 58 Years v. The State Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.12222 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.6487 of 2018 1.P.Lakshmanan 2.L.Murthy .. Petitioners Vs 1.The State rep.by its Sub-Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station Krishnagiri 635 001.

2.Ramachandran .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records pertaining to Crime No.155 of 2018 dated 20.03.2018 on the file of the Town Police Station, Krishnagiri and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.Ramamurthy for Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For R1 : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to Crime No.155 of 2018 dated 20.03.2018 on the file of the Town Police Station, Krishnagiri and quash the same.

2. On the complaint lodged by Ramachandran, the first respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.155 of 2018 on 20.03.2018 under Sections 294(b), 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC against Lakshmanan and others, for quashing which, this application has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the accused and the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the State.

4. On a reading of the FIR, it is seen that the de facto complainant has alleged that he had purchased a property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

measuring 10 3/4 cents from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 05.01.2017 in a public auction and that the local people were causing disturbance to him, on account of which, he approached the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities and the police came to the place and demarcated the boundaries and handed over possession of the property to the petitioner. While so, on 20.03.2018, when the de facto complainant was fencing his property, the accused and others formed an unlawful assembly and chased away the labourers who were engaged by the de facto complainant to fence the land. Hence, the complaint and the consequent FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is a temple in the said land and therefore, the local people were objecting to the allotment. He also contended that a writ petition has been filed for cancellation of the allotment.

6. Be that as it may, the de facto complainant has been allotted the land and the accused cannot take law into their hands to prevent him from enjoying the property. Since there are prima facie materials, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the FIR. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in charge of Krishnagiri Sub Division, is directed to monitor the investigation in Cr.No.155 of 2018. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station Krishnagiri 635 001.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, Advocate SR.No.36930 Crl.O.P.No.12222 of 2018 GN(28/06/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/