HC rejects plea of noted industrialist's son against trial in case of trespass

The Madras High Court has rejected a plea by noted industrialist M A M Ramaswamy's adopted son M A M R Muthiah, seeking to quash trial in a lower court in a case of trespass and damage to the industrialist's property. Justice M Dhandapani, while making it clear that there is no infirmity on the part of the lower court in taking cognisance of the offence, directed Muthiah to work out a remedy in the manner known to the law once the charges were framed.

He rejected the petition filed in the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate here on a complaint made against him by one of Ramaswamy's security personnel with regard to trespass and damage to the gate of the property. In the complaint, it was stated that on February 21, 2015, Muthiah had instigated Alagu, a security officer of Chettinad Security Services, along with associates, to break open the gate of the vacant property at MRC Nagar in the city, trespass and snatch the key and mobile phone from the security guard and threatened to assault him.

The next day, Ramaswamy came to the spot and verified the incident and found that the cost of the damage incurred was Rs 25,000. He lodged a police complaint against Muthiah and Alagu on February 23.

Police, except giving the community service register (CSR) receipt, did not take any further action, so Muthuvelliyan in charge of the day-to-day maintenance of Chettinad House approached the jurisdictional magistrate with a complaint against Muthiah under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate had, on November 4, 2015, recorded Muthuvelliyan's sworn statement and on November 25 the security guard Srinivasan's statement and directed a police inspector to hold an investigation.

On the basis of the report filed by police, the Magistrate had on December 22, 2016, took cognisance of the offences under Sections 427 and 448 IPC and issued summons to the accused, which Muthiah has sought to be quashed. Justice Dhandapani, who refused to quash the summons, in his order, said the security officer, who was present at the time of the incident, is entitled to file a complaint.

He also directed the trial court to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law while dismissing Muthiah's petition.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)