Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 473 (MAD)

Paramasivam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

2012-01-31

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents 1 and 2, from acting on the complaint filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4, regarding the property comprised in S. No.636/13 and 14, being subject matter of the Civil Dispute in O.S.No.89 of 2010, pending in the Court of District Munsiff, Attur. 2. The petitioner purchased the property measuring about 6191 sq.ft. from Thiru Narayanan on 31.1.1994. The adjoining land to the one sold to the petitioner, was also in possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the petitioner for more than 22 years. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the petitioner since date of its purchase. 3. The National Highways Authority of India acquired 21 feet of the land on the South-North falling in S.No. 623/13 for widening NH-67 to four lanes. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that after acquisition of the land, the respondents 3 and 4 were trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land, falling in S.No.636/14 to earn profit by plotting of the land falling in share of respondents 3 & 4 in this survey number. 4. The respondents 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.89 of 2010 in the Court of District Munsiff, Attur. In the suit, an application was filed for interim injunction, restraining the petitioner and his men from in anyway interfering or disturbing or constructing of buildings or weigh-bridge. 5. The petitioner filed his counter in the Interlocutory Application No. 280 of 2010, along with written statement in the suit. The respondents 3 and 4 failed in their attempt to get injunction. 6. The respondents 3 and 4, thereafter, started threatening and harassing the petitioner, by filing a complaint with the Cell constituted to look into cases of land grabbing in Tamil Nadu. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4 with malafide intention started creating nuisance by filing the complaint to the Inspector of Police / respondent no.2, alleging therein that the petitioner has encroached the land under the ownership and possession of respondents 3 and 4, though the matter is subjudice in the Civil Court. 8. In order to enquire about the complaint, the petitioner was called to Police Station. 8. In order to enquire about the complaint, the petitioner was called to Police Station. The petitioner has approached this Court to prohibit respondent nos.1 & 2 from acting on the complaint filed by respondent nos.3 & 4. The petitioner has not placed on record the copy of the complaint filed against him. 9. It is pertinent to notice here that the petitioner has not named the Inspector, who is said to have called the petitioner for investigation nor the date and particulars as to whom the petitioner was called have been disclosed. The petitioner has also failed to place on record any notice issued by respondent nos.1 &2, calling the petitioner for investigation. 10. On consideration, I find that this writ petition is totally misconceived. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot prohibit respondent nos.1 & 2 from discharging the statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of respondent nos.1 &2 to take appropriate action on the complaint in case any cognizable offence is disclosed. 11. The remedy with the petitioner is to challenge the complaint by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in case complaint discloses no offence or it amounts to misuse of the process of Court. The petitioner also has an alternative remedy of approaching the Civil Court in the pending suit for appropriate relief. 12. The writ of prohibition, in general form, cannot be issued on the vague allegations, specially when the petitioner has not even chosen to implead the Police Officer, who is said to have have violated any provisions of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also failed to disclose the material facts, which can entitle the writ Court to exercise the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, to interfere with investigation of a criminal case. 13. The reading of affidavit on the other hand shows that the Civil dispute is pending between the parties and the complaint is filed with malafide intention. The petitioner, in the garb of invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, cannot claim general prohibitory order, restraining respondent nos.1 & 2 from acting on the complaint. The relief, if granted, would amount to interference with the statutory powers, vested with respondent no.1 under Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the criminal offence. 14. The petitioner, in the garb of invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, cannot claim general prohibitory order, restraining respondent nos.1 & 2 from acting on the complaint. The relief, if granted, would amount to interference with the statutory powers, vested with respondent no.1 under Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the criminal offence. 14. At the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned that the petitioner has chosen not to file the copy of complaint or give detail particulars and has levelled general allegations of malafide without material particulars. 15. It is well settled law that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to prohibit the authorities from acting in accordance with Statute, specially when the remedy under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint is available to the petitioner, wherein, this Court will be in a position to see whether invoking of criminal proceedings is misuse of the process of Court or not. 16. Consequently, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. 17. No costs. connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.