Judgment 1. The first petitioner is 72 years old. The second and third petitioners are Advocates and the fourth petitioner is a Police constable. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent police without any jurisdiction registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.169 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. 3. The first petitioner and her sister Ayyammal jointly owned ancestral property in S.F.No.19/2, 20/4, 20/6 and 20/4 old Survey No.84/11, 84/14B and 92/4 at Alangulam and Anaiyur village, Madurai District. 4. The first petitioner filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.112 of 1985 and subsequently, the same was compromised and final decree was passed on 29.09.1993. The first petitioner was allotted 'A' Schedule property and 'C' Schedule property was allotted to Ayyammal, and keeping 20 feet common pathway and 5 cents for Samadhi in 'C' Schedule property. The first petitioner is cultivating in the above said lands. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that the second respondent who is a real estate broker is said to have allegedly purchased the property of the first petitioner's sister he came to the first petitioner's place and offered to purchase her property. However, she refused to sell the property for lower price. Therefore, giving a wrong information, the second respondent filed a petition before this Court seeking police protection and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.10.2011. Thereafter, she approached the first respondent police to give a complaint to register the impugned F.I.R. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that with a mala fide motive, the complaint has been given and that the pathway is a common pathway and that nobody can take over the pathway and the petitioners had not prevented the intervenor who is using the pathway. He tried to enter upon the property and the same was resisted. Therefore, the second respondent gave a police complaint to give protection for cleaning the pathway and based on that only, the F.I.R has been registered. It is also contended that there is no jurisdiction for the first respondent police. The rights of the parties were already decided in O.S.No.112 of 1985 and when that is the case, the police cannot have any jurisdiction. 7. It is also contended that there is no jurisdiction for the first respondent police. The rights of the parties were already decided in O.S.No.112 of 1985 and when that is the case, the police cannot have any jurisdiction. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the petitioners are demanding money for enjoying the second respondent's property and in fact Rs.2,90,000/- was paid to the first petitioner. Since the petitioners are disturbing the possession of the second respondent, the complaint was given seeking police protection to clean the property. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent. 9. Admittedly, the property originally belongs to the first petitioner and her sister Ayyamal. Though the second respondent is trying to enter upon the property, she is only a agreement holder and she is not entitled to the said property as on date. The rights of the parties were already decided in O.S.No.112 of 1985, on 29.09.1993. The pathway has to be commonly enjoyed by both parties. Entering into an agreement, will not convey and confer any title. If at all, anybody has got right, it is only the first petitioner's sister. 10. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed the impugned F.I.R is quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.