Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.11178 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. 2. Such case arises out of a private complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The 3rd respondent is the other accused in such case. 3. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner/ 1st accused who is an inspector of police abused his position and caused the eviction of the petitioners from their dwelling house under the guise of registering a case to under section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner came with a posse of police and videographers and carried out his wrongful action under threat of arrest. 4. This, the petitioner has done towards aiding the 3rd respondent/2nd accused taking possession of such house. Reference is made to several complaints preferred by the complainants as also the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner/accused, action thereupon, several wrong doings of both the 3rd respondent as also the husband/father of the complainants and of an alleged forgery of a will of the 1st respondents mother in law. 5. The entire episode arises out of a dispute over a property which belonged to Late Rema Narayan, the mother in law of the 1st respondent. According to the respondents one and two, their husband/father was of wayward character and the mother in law was benevolent towards them and hence they had continued to live with her. The mother in law had promised the 1st respondent the house property. The mother-in-law died on 21.01.2006. Being hounded by creditors, the husband had gone missing for sometime. 6. According to the complainant, the 3rd respondent had put up a forged will claiming bequest in her favour over the property. The husband had informed his suspicion regarding the will, had borrowed Rs.9,00,000/-from the 1st respondent towards getting temporary respite and had asked her to reside in the house also at night. The 3rd respondent who was none other than the daughter of the original owner of the property i.e., the mother-in-law of 1st respondent, had obtained letters of administration in respect of the will executed in her favour. It was the 1st respondents suspicion that the 3rd respondent might have lent or helped the husband to tide over his financial difficulties and obtained the signatures on blank papers towards obtaining the letters of administration. It was the 1st respondents suspicion that the 3rd respondent might have lent or helped the husband to tide over his financial difficulties and obtained the signatures on blank papers towards obtaining the letters of administration. The respondents 1 and 2 claim ancestral nucleus to the property and a right of the 2nd respondent there to. A habeas corpus petition was filed by the 2nd respondent complaining that his father was in the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent herein. In such H.C.P.No.82 of 2007, this Court passed the following order: "2. When the habeas corpus petition was taken up for admission on 22.01.2007, this Court had directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take notice and get instructions. Today, when the habeas corpus petition is taken up for hearing, the detenu himself is present and he has also filed an affidavit. Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as well as the affidavit of the detenu, it is clear that there is a civil dispute including family dispute between the parties and we are not inclined to go into that question in the habeas corpus petition, as it may affect their respective rights. Hence, we orally enquired the detenu. He stated that he is living separately on his own will and he denied the allegation that he is kept in illegal custody by the second respondent. 3. In view of the above specific statement made in the open Court, we are not inclined to pursue the habeas corpus petition any further. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed." Several offences both under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Indian penal code and the the Tamil Nadu District Police Act and violation of police standing orders are alleged against the accused. 7. The counsel for the petitioner informs that in respect of the property in dispute, three complaints were received. By the first complaint dated by 05.12.2006 the husband of the 1st respondent, had complained that the 1st respondent who had been living at Lloyds Road, Royapettah, had unauthorisedly moved into the first floor of the disputed property at No.2, Bishop Wallers Avenue West, Mylapore, Chennai-4. The same was entered in Community Service Register under number 386. The 3rd respondent preferred the complaint on 07.12.2006 informing that the 1st respondent was attempting to trespass into the property held by her. The same was entered in Community Service Register under number 386. The 3rd respondent preferred the complaint on 07.12.2006 informing that the 1st respondent was attempting to trespass into the property held by her. This was entered in Community Service Register No.389. 8. On 11.12.2006, the 1st respondent preferred a complaint against both her husband and sister-in-law, the 3rd respondent, of disturbances caused to her by the 3rd respondent, of her having moved a petition for maintenance, of her husband not having returned the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-lent by her, of conspiracy in the matter and informing that the matter (true state of affairs) would be known if the parties concerned are called an enquiry and investigation is done as per law. This was registered in Community Service Register No.394. There were continuous disturbances to the public peace and on receiving a message from the Commissioners office control room, the sub inspector of police had gone to the disputed property and informed the petitioner that the 1st and 3rd respondent were creating a law and order problem at the disputed property. Owing to the frequent occurrences and because the disputed property lay on the road to the chief ministers residence, he immediately laid a FIR under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in crime number 31 of 2007, locked the premises and referred the matter to the Collector, Chennai District who in turn directed that the Magistrate Mylapore taluk to conduct the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. 9. The respondents 1 and 2 as also the 3rd respondent fully partook in the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate and while the 3rd respondent was able to show the letters of administration obtained in her favour, that an earlier tenant in the property had vacated and handed over possession to her and that in all this there was the concurrence of her brother, the husband of the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent and her brother being the only legal heirs of late Remi Narayan, the respondents one and two had not been able to put up any proof of their possession. Having partaken in such enquiry and nearing the conclusion thereof, realising that orders therein would not be in their favour, a false frivolous and vexatious complaint had been filed against the petitioner. 10. Having partaken in such enquiry and nearing the conclusion thereof, realising that orders therein would not be in their favour, a false frivolous and vexatious complaint had been filed against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the legal opinion tendered by the Government Pleader to the effect that it was the 3rd respondent who was entitled to the property submits that if the intention of the petitioner was to cause harm to the respondents 1 and 2, he very well could have effected their arrest armed therewith. It is only when the petitioner was put in a predicament arising out of repeated disturbances to public order in a place which was en route to the chief ministers residence that he had resorted to the action taken by him. 11. Learned counsel also referred to the complaint to inform that the same had been preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 and that such a joint complaint was not maintainable as had been held by this Honourable Court, time and again. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently would contest the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and assert that the property very much was in the possession of the respondents 1 and 2. Bringing a posse of policemen and videographers, the petitioner had threatened the respondents 1 and 2 with arrest and caused their eviction. It was not the petitioners business to lock up the premises and take away the key and he clearly had acted beyond his authority. 13. Learned counsel relied upon several decisions towards informing of a Hindu wifes right to maintenance as also on the nature of the dispute not being amenable to proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The grant of letters of administration in favour of the 3rd respondent was under challenge. Learned counsel refers to the decision of this court in Crl.O.P.No.31512 of 2007 wherein the orders of the Executive Magistrate dated 06.06.2007 have been quashed. 14. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would support the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and inform that she was legally entitled to the property and being in possession thereof, in the interest of maintaining peace and avoiding disturbance thereof, she had subjected herself to the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate. 14. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would support the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and inform that she was legally entitled to the property and being in possession thereof, in the interest of maintaining peace and avoiding disturbance thereof, she had subjected herself to the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate. Her brother, the husband of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had been separated for well over 20 years and it was an absolute falsehood to state that the 1st respondent was residing in the disputed property. The 3rd respondent had been put in possession of a portion of the property even by the tenant and this had been done on her brother, the only other legal heir of her mother, accepting the letters of administration issued in her favour. The respondents 1 and 2 had preferred a false frivolous and vexatious complaint. The fact of the complaint having been preferred almost 6 months after the occurrence would in itself support this plea. The primary aim of the respondents 1 and 2 was to somehow or other entangle the 3rd respondent in criminal proceedings. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that the counsel for the 1st respondent virtually has stepped into the shoes of the litigant who is none other than his sister-in-law. In the compliant of the 3rd respondent dated 07.12.2006, allegations are made even against such counsel. 16. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire materials put up. 17. Though the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 had referred to decisions of other courts which have held that a complaint could be preferred by more than one person, I, rather would follow the decisions, which include also those of this High Court, that a complaint by more than one person was not envisaged in the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, I am inclined to hold that the complaint preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not a genuine action. The question that arises for consideration is not whether resort to proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the present case or not. It is whether in having resorted to such action, the petitioner has conducted himself illegally. The question that arises for consideration is not whether resort to proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the present case or not. It is whether in having resorted to such action, the petitioner has conducted himself illegally. The circumstances are these: (i) There are repeated disturbances owing to disputes over the property as can be seen from the various rival complaints; (ii) Admittedly, letters of administration in respect of the property have been issued in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had sought and obtained the opinion of the Government Pleader to the effect that the 3rd respondent was entitled thereto; (iii) The very complaint of the 1st respondent dated 11.12.2006 goes to show that she was not dwelling in the disputed property; and (iv) The complaint is unduly delayed. 18. It can be nobodys case that the petitioner had a right to lock up the premises and take away the key. Indeed he did not. But, that by itself would not mean that the petitioner acted illegally. This is a case where the petitioner has been caught in the crossfire between the respondents 1 and 2 on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other. On the face of it, the 3rd respondent had letters of administration issued in her favour and had ample proof of being in possession of the property. The petitioner was armed with the opinion of the Government Pleader. Whileso, as rightly contended, if he was acting at the behest of the 3rd respondent, it would have been much easier to merely arrest respondents 1 and 2 and thereby serve the 3rd respondents interests. The petitioners contention that he had not handed over the keys to the disputed property to the 3rd respondent till such time the Executive Magistrate had passed an order on 06.06.2007 is not contested. This long and winding road of Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings need not have been resorted to at all. It is seen that this court had quashed the orders of the Executive Magistrate not on the merits of the case, but on the ground that a preliminary order as envisaged in section 145 Cr.P.C. had not been passed by him at the first instance. 19. The disputed property has witnessed several disturbances and being en route to the chief ministers house has been a matter of concern for the 1st petitioner. 19. The disputed property has witnessed several disturbances and being en route to the chief ministers house has been a matter of concern for the 1st petitioner. Finding himself in an unenviable position where he would be answerable to his superiors in the event of any disturbance/outbreak, the petitioner has acted in the manner he did. It is not the intent of this court to condone the lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is only that this court is unable to see any criminality attached thereto. In taking this view, it may seen, that this Court is considering a defence that may be raised on behalf of the petitioner. On pragmatic and practical considerations, the view taken would find support. It is apparent that the respondents 1 and 2 have resorted to filing the complaint after much delay and anticipating adverse orders from the Executive Magistrate. The submission that the complaint case is a ruse to entangle the 3rd respondent in criminal proceedings cannot easily be brushed aside. 20. For the above reasons stated, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. Once this court finds that no offence would be made out against the petitioner, it would follow that the 3rd respondent also cannot be liable in any manner in respect of such occurrence. In such circumstance, the proceedings in C.C.No.11178 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai shall stand quashed.