Consart Dayas Jacobs v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.08.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10838 of 2017 and CRP.MP(MD).No.7410 of 2017 1.Consart Dayas Jacobs 2.Saroja Jacobs ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 & 2 -Vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Rajakunjaram ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records pertains to Crime No.291 of 2017, dated 21.06.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.Side).
***
O R D E R
This Criminal Original petition is filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.291 of 2017, dated 21.06.2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police station, Kanyakumari District.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.
3. The petitioners state that the second respondent is the father of one Dr.Rajeshkumar, who is in abroad. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent on behalf of his son purchased property measuring an extent of 8 cents and 600 links of land in Survey No.82/1A, at Aloor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District under a registered Sale Deed, dated 25.04.2014. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the southern side of the said property purchased by the second respondent's son, there is a water channel belonging to the Public Works Department and that on the further southern side of the said channel, the petitioners are having their Patta land measuring to an extent of 38 cents in
Survey No.85/2. It is also alleged that the second respondent herein who is a practicing advocate at Nagercoil Bar, illegally encroached the said public channel and put up a compound wall, thereby preventing the water flow in the channel. When there was an attempt to remove the encroachment of the channel by the revenue officials, the second respondent's son approached this Court, challenging the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Engineer of WRO, Irrigation, Public Works Department, Nagercoil. It is also stated that on a technical ground, that the impugned notice for eviction had been wrongly issued in Form III notice, instead of Form II, the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4478 of 2017 was allowed by this Court by an order dated 16.03.2017.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter a proper notice was issued in Form I and Form II as per the provisions Tamil Nadu Act, 8 of 2007. It was only thereafter the encroachment that was made by the second respondent and his son was removed. It is stated that the second respondent has given a complaint alleging that the petitioners are responsible for the unauthorised eviction of the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners have come before this Court to quash First Information Report in Crime No.291 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.
5. From the reading of the papers that were included in the typed set of papers, this Court is not in a position to determine as to whether, the procedure contemplated in terms of Provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007 was followed or not. The service of notice itself is doubtful, as the encroacher is in abroad. In such circumstances, this Court either on the factual materials or on the statement made by the petitioners cannot hold that the statement of facts contained in the complaint lodged by the second respondent is either erroneous or false.
6. The complaint lodged by the second respondent clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offence for which the petitioners and others are liable to be prosecuted, in case, the offence as against the petitioners and others are proved. Merely because, the second respondent had encroached into the Government channel and that the removal of encroachment is in public interest, the second respondent cannot be deprived of his lawful right to be dealt with only in accordance with law.
7. In such circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for quashing the criminal complaint as stated above. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.K.SUDALAIYANDI Advocate in SR. No. 73015 KM/PMU JS/KP/SAR.1/11.09.2017/3P-4C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.10838 of 2017 18.08.2017