(Prayer :- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.50 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.50 of 2024. They have come forward with the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.50 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2. Brief facts to dispose the quash petition is as that the second respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent and the same was registered in Crime No.50 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 427, 379 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. As per the said F.I.R, it is alleged that the second respondent entitled the property in Door No.3/256, situated at Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Pappakurichi Post, Trichy District. The first petitioner is an adjacent land owner of the second respondent's property and the petitioner and one Sakthivel have assert a right over the property to encroach upon the second respondent's land claiming right over the property. When the matter stood thus, on 08.02.2024 at about 05.00 pm., the petitioners entered into the second respondent's house with the intention of unlawfully occupying the said property. When the second respondent questioned the same, the petitioners and other accused persons abused with filthy language and they given a life threat with deadly weapons. Further alleged that the accused persons stolen property worth of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and demolished the thatched shed worth of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Once the neighbouring land owners rushed to the spot the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the case was registered as per the prosecution story.

3. The grounds raised in the quash petition is as that the police did not conduct the proper investigation. The petitioners are innocent persons and they are not at all connected with the alleged offence. It is true that the first petitioner and the second respondent are adjacent land owners. The allegations are vague and general in nature. The issue is entirely civil dispute and only out of vengeance, the second respondent preferred a false complaint. Hence this quash petition.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Considered the submissions raised by both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner and the second respondent are neighbouring land owners, where they are having houses. Having some dispute with regard to civil in nature, a false case has been registered against the petitioners and other accused. The F.I.R is baseless, wherein, there was no stolen of property or damage of the property with the value of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) respectively.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision of this Court in Murali v. The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Police Station, Chennai, in Crl.O.P.No.4980 of 2019, dated 26.09.2022, wherein this Court quashed the FIR, taking note of the fact that the contraband and NDPS had not been produced before the Magistrate. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the allegations relate to mischief and theft of articles.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and that it is only the first information to set the criminal law in motion. During the investigation, the investigating agency may come up with strong allegations and establish a prima facie case to proceed with the trial by collecting evidence with regard to the theft of property worth Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and the damage caused to the property worth Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) belonging to the second respondent. The participation of the petitioners in the crime is to be proved only at the stage of trial. The complaint given by the second respondent makes out a case of using obscene words, mischief causing damage to the second respondent's house, theft, and criminal intimidation. A case was registered, and the investigation has commenced. Since there is no stay, the investigation against the petitioners is going on. Upon completion of the investigation, the prosecution agency will file a charge sheet before the concerned forum. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of this petition.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court Full Bench decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on considering the earlier decisions in large number and culled out the principles emerged therein, holding that the power of quashing should to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and it has been observed in the rarest of rare cases and the Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations and the police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint / F.I.R. does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, the investigating agency finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report before the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

9. Citing the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners' case not deserve for quashing, wherein only the F.I.R has been registered and the investigation is going on. After the investigation only, the involvement of the accused should be ascertained and if at all the investigating officer is felt, there is no real truth in the complaint, he will file a report in this regard.

10. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners and the second respondent are neighbours, but, no actual crime is taken place and only with the false intention to harass the petitioners, the complaint has been lodged and therefore, the F.I.R. may be quashed.

11. Taking into consideration of the facts narrated above and submission of both sides, the case against the petitioners is mischief and theft of property from the second respondent of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) respectively coupled with using abusive words and criminal intimidation. Having the FIR registered, after investigation only the real facts have to come to known to the Court, about the mischief or stolen of the property by the second respondent by the act of the petitioners herein and the co-accused. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have committed mischief causing damage to the worth of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the second respondent's house and stolen articles to the worth about Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). These are vital aspects to be gathered during the investigation and therefore, the fanciful grounds raised in the quash petition does not deserve to be allowed. Only after the completion of the investigation, the case against the petitioners can be ascertained. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, permitting the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.