Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2245 (MAD)

Justin v. Wyslin

2017-07-27

V.BHARATHIDASAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.899 of 2009, dated 30.10.2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Petitioner is a complainant in a private complaint. Earlier, the Petitioner has given a complaint against six persons alleging that he is the owner of the agricultural land in S.No312/7 and on 31.10.2008, the first and second Accused in this case trespassed into his land and attempted to change the boundary stones and also criminally intimidated him. Subsequently, he came to know that the second respondent herein who is the Firka Surveyor has wrongly measured the property and has given 10 fts. in favour of A1 and A2 and fifth and sixth respondents who are P.W.D Officials illegally damaged the check dam constructed by the Petitioner. When a complaint was given to the first respondent herein/The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, he refused to register the complaint and failed to take appropriate action against the accused persons. 3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate considering the complaint as well as the sworn statement of the Petitioner, issued process to the first and second Accused and dismissed the said application in respect of the respondents herein. Now challenging the order dismissing the complaint in respect of the respondents, the present revision is filed. 4. I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and considered the materials on record. 5. From the perusal of the complaint, it is seen that there is an overt-act attributed against A1 and A2 as they have trespassed into the land of the Petitioner and attempted to change the boundary stones. So far as other accused is concerned, it could be seen that after receipt of the complaint, second respondent registered a case in C.S.R.No.531 of 2008 and also he visited the scene of occurrence along with the complainant and investigated the case. Hence the allegation against him is not substantiated with any other materials. So far as second respondent is concerned, even though the Petitioner has stated that he has wrongly surveyed the land in favour of A1 and A2, there is no other material available to prove the same. Hence the allegation against him is not substantiated with any other materials. So far as second respondent is concerned, even though the Petitioner has stated that he has wrongly surveyed the land in favour of A1 and A2, there is no other material available to prove the same. So far as the 5th and 6th respondents are concerned, even though there is an allegation that they have damaged the check Dam constructed by the Petitioner, for which also there is no material available to show that they have damaged it. Considering all these materials, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint given by the Petitioner, as against A3 to A6 as there is no prima facie case as against the respondents. I have carefully considered the materials available on record and I find no illegality in the order passed by the Court below and I find no merit in this revision. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.