Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1975 (MAD)

D. Devi & Another v. S. Latha

2009-06-30

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Original petition has been filed by the petitioner herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in the private complaint filed by the Respondent and pending in C.C. No.895 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, polur and quash the same. 2. The contentions of the petitioners herein is that they purchased a property, belonging to the complainants father on 07.06.2006, for a valuable consideration of Rs.63,000/-after duly verifying the ownership, encumbrance etc. Also on 26.09.2006, the respondent herein, who is the complainant, sent a legal notice to the petitioners denying the absolute ownership of the vendor and claiming a share in the subject matter of the property. The petitioners herein sent a reply through their Counsel denying the allegations of the respondent. However, the respondent on 111. 2006, sent a legal notice claiming Rs.10 Lakhs as damages from each of the petitioners herein. In the meanwhile, the respondent had also filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, polur against the petitioners under Sections 500 and 505 IPC, misinterpreting the averments made in the reply notice given by the petitioners. It is stated by the complainant that averments in the replay notice sent by the petitioner, denying that the complainant is not the granddaughter of their vendor through his son, attracts the provisions of sections 500 and 505 IPC and the petitioners are liable thereunder. 3. A careful perusal of the records before me clearly reveals that the dispute raised by the complainant viz., the respondent herein is purely of a civil nature. If she has got any rights as claimed by her in the complainant, she has to establish it by way of reliable evidence before Civil Court. A reading of the averments in the complainant, in my view, are not defamatory in nature, and were not made with intent to cause fear or alarm or excitement in the mind of the complainant and hence prima facie Sections 500 and 505 IPC are not attracted. So, the private complainant filed by the respondent against the petitioners, in my view, only amounts to abuse of process of Court, and hence the proceedings before the Lower Court are liable to be quashed. 4. So, the private complainant filed by the respondent against the petitioners, in my view, only amounts to abuse of process of Court, and hence the proceedings before the Lower Court are liable to be quashed. 4. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the private complainant taken on file as C.C. No.895 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, polur is quashed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.