Madras High Court
V.Jeyabharathi vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.01.2025
Pronounced on : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3305, 3306, 3309 &3310 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4189 of 2024
V.Jeyabharathi ... Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID (South),
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
2.S.Kasirajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No.47
of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thanjavur and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
1/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sricharan Rengarajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Karthick
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Kumaravel
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4192 of 2024
1.S.Baskar
2.S.Raja Thambi
3.M.Chidambaram
4.R.Ramalingam ... Petitioners/
A3, A5 to A7
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID (South),
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.1 of 2022)
2.S.Kasirajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No.47
of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thanjavur and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan
for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Karthick
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Kumaravel
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4189 of 2024 is filed by A4 and Crl.O.P. (MD).No.4192 of 2024 is filed by A3, A5, A6 and A7 to quash S.C.No. 47 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2.Since both petitions filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.47 of 2024 and the grounds raised are identical, a common order is passed.
3.The brief facts of the case is that one Veerapillai of Athalur Village, Peravoorani Taluk owned lands and he had no issues, hence he settled his properties in favour of his sister sons Chinnayapillai, 3/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 Rengasamy Pillai, Marimuthu Pillai and Iyyakannu Pillai. Totally there are 42 properties which were settled to the above persons by Document No.41 of 1925. Chinnayapillai and Rengasamypillai settled with Pattukottai properties, Marimuthupillai and Iyyakannu Pillai settled with Athalur properties.
4.An extent of 20 cents in S.No.218/3 at Palaniyappan Nagar, Pattukottai was divided and shared between Chinnayapillai and Rengasamypillai of 10 cents each. Chinnayapillai and his wife Sundarathachi had no issues. Chinnayapillai died in the year 1943 and Sundarathachi sold 10 cents of land at Palaniyappan Nagar to K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar on 01.07.1949 vide Document No. 2088/1949. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17.06.1956. Prior to 17.06.1956, female members of a family can only enjoy the family property but have no right to alienate the property. Hence, the brothers of Chinnayapillai, namely, Iyyakannu Pillai and others filed a suit in O.S.No.251 of 1950 before the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai seeking declaration of sale executed by Sundarathachi dated 01.07.1949 vide Document No.2088/1949 as void. Thereafter the 4/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 suit was transferred from Pattukottai to the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and re-numbered as O.S.No.410 of 1950. The suit was decreed in favour of Iyyakannu Pillai and others on 28.11.1952. Sundarathachi, wife of Chinnayapillai died on 10.03.1962.
5.Rengasamy Pillai died in the year 1954 and his wife Alamelu Achi sold her 10 cents to Manickam Chettiyar on 14.05.1960 vide Document No.1170/1962 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
6.As regards the property sold by Alamelu Achi, wife of Rengasamy Pillai to Manickam Chettiyar, the said Manickam Chettiyar filed a civil suit in O.S.No.132 of 1969 before the Sub Court, Thanjavur for declaration to declare him as the owner of the property on the basis of sale deed. The said suit was dismissed on 13.09.1971, against which he filed an appeal before the High Court, Madras in A.S.No.369 of 1972 and the same was dismissed on 01.12.1975.
5/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
7.Iyyakannu Pillai died in the year 1962 and his son Muthusamy Pillai and others filed a civil suit in O.S.No.64 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai against the said K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar seeking for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed in favour of Muthusamy Pillai on 27.04.1970. Against which, the said K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.613 of 1970 before the High Court, Madras. The High Court dismissed the appeal suit by judgment dated 29.04.1976.
8.Based on the decree, Muthusamy Pillai and others filed execution petitions in E.P.Nos.50 & 51 of 1988 for delivery of possession and the same dismissed on the ground of delay and limitation. Against which, C.R.P.Nos.2954 and 2955 of 1986 filed and this Court by order dated 19.11.1996 allowed the Civil Revision Petitions. Before passing of orders in the Civil Revision Petitions, the said Muthusamy Pillai died and his sons, Veeramani and Selvaraj stepped in as legal heirs and representatives.
6/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
9.One Nagaraj/A2, son of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar sold 18 cents of land [9 cents in S.No.218/2 and 9 cents in S.No.218/3] to Viswanathan/A1, a former Chairman of Pattukottai by creating a forged document in Document No.575/1997 dated 16.07.1997 which was kept as pending document in SRO, Pattukottai. It is seen that in the property in Palaniyappan Nagar, Pattukottai in S.No.218/2, 17 cents were acquired by the Pattukottai Panchayat 45 years before as per the records and the sons of Muthusamy Pillai, namely, Veeramani and Selvaraj were in possession of 9 cents in S.No.218/3. This being so, Viswanathan/A1 claims possession of the property claiming A2 sold 18 cents of land in S.Nos.218/2 and 218/3, constructed a shop and rented out to third parties. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj proceeded with E.P.Nos.50 and 51 of 1988 in O.S.No.64 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai and the said Viswanathan/A1 was arrayed as party to the proceedings. Since Viswanathan/A1 was a powerful man with muscle and money power and hailing from dominant community, a leader to himself in the area, Veeramani and Selvaraj unable to fight for their legal rights, reclaim the property declared by the High Court in their favour. Later, the said Veeramani and Selvaraj approached the second respondent/defacto 7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 complainant, who as counsel provided all legal assistance to the said Veeramani and Selvaraj from the year 1999. The clout and influence of A1 was such EP could not be listed for adjudication in the list in a routine manner. With great difficulty, the second respondent brought the EP to the list on 27.01.2003 and on 31.12.2003, the Sub Court, Pattukottai ordered delivery of property to Veeramani and Selvaraj. Against which, one Praveen Kumar and others filed E.A.Nos.12 to 19 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Pattukottai which was dismissed on 23.03.2005. The second respondent/defacto complainant went to the Court on 24.03.2005 for filing batta, at that time, A1 along with his henchmen came there, threatened the defacto complainant and even some of the Advocates advised the defacto complainant to enter into a compromise on the terms of Viswanathan/A1 which the defacto complainant refused. In fact, the said Viswanathan/A1 in the open Court challenged as to how the second respondent’s clients Veeramani and Selvaraj would take possession of the property and will be alive to enjoy the property. On dismissal of E.A.Nos.12 to 19 of 2004, A.S.No.31 to 38 of 2005 filed before the District Court, Thanjavur which was dismissed on 28.10.2005. Thereafter, the another tenant Akilan and four others 8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 filed C.M.S.A.Nos.30 to 35 of 2006 before the High Court. The High Court finding the trajectory of the case and how Viswanathan and his family members successfully obstructing delivery of possession and threatening Advocates who dare to oppose them and obstructing the process of law. The High Court passed an order on 19.03.2008 directing the tenants to vacate the premises within nine months and ordered delivery of possession to Veeramani and Selvaraj.
10.Despite several nine months passed by, the tenants not vacated the premises, the property not delivered, the petitioners, family members of Viswanathan continued to enjoy the property. Hence, the defacto complainant took steps seeking delivery of possession by approaching the Sub Court, Pattukottai. Earlier on 14.08.2009 an attempt was made for delivery of property, but delivery warrant could not be executed since requisite Police force not available and the Bailiff unable to execute the warrant. A1 and his family thus caused obstruction, threat and innumerable sufferings to the defacto complainant in discharging his professional duty as an Advocate perpetrated by the petitioners. A1/Viswanathan died on 16.07.2007 and A2/Nagaraj died on 9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 19.09.2011. The defacto complainant sent representations to the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai, Deputy Superintendent of Police on 03.01.2009, 26.03.2009 and 14.08.2009 about he being abused, threatened and fearing for his life and limb sought protection. On 22.04.2010, the defacto complainant went to the Sub Court, Pattukottai for paying batta and to take steps for issuance of warrant and execution of the same with the Police aid, but again it could not be executed since there is no adequate Police strength. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went to meet his another client Dr.Anbarasan and thereafter went to Chandra Mess to have his lunch, at that time, A8/Senthil @ Kalyana Odai Senthil, at the instigation of family members and associates of A1 came there along with henchmen to eliminate the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the same, A9 using Aruval caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant, A10 to A12 using iron rod caused grievous injuries, A13 and A14 using wooden logs caused injuries to the defacto complainant, who mercilessly beaten in public and the defacto complainant suffered grievous injuries.
11.L.W.19/Dr.Anbarasan on coming to know about the incident, took the defacto complainant to the GRAM Hospital, given first aid and 10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 thereafter took him to Rohini Hospital, Thanjavur where he was treated as inpatient from 22.04.2010 to 26.04.2010. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was referred to Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai for further treatment where he took treatment from 27.04.2010 to 01.05.2010. The defacto complainant's life could be saved but he was impaired, his movement restricted, mentally disturbed and he was unable to concentrate and continue his profession as before. Again he was admitted in the Hospital from 21.12.2012 to 24.12.2012 and still continuing his treatment and thus, permanent impediment caused to the defacto complainant by the muscle men employed by A3 to A7, who are family members and associates of A1. To prove the fact that in Pattukottai, the power of A1, his family and his clan cannot be questioned. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj belong to minority community in Pattukottai despite legal recourse taken by the defacto complainant affected and dented their dominance in the area, the petitioners executed the attack, in a well planned manner, all the accused conspired and executed the attack on the second respondent, an Advocate who follows ethics and discharged his legal obligation. 11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
12.On the complaint of second respondent, a case in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai and the defacto complainant named several persons in the complaint. But no action taken against them and even the statement of defacto complainant not recorded. Hence, the defacto complainant filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7549 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 11.04.2022 issued direction to provide police protection to the petitioner, transferred the case to CBCID, directed to appoint an efficient Officer to conduct investigation and the Deputy Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation. Thereafter, the CBCID took up investigation and re- registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the Trial Court on 13.11.2023 which was taken on file in S.C.No.47 of 2024. Against which, the present petitions filed.
13.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4189 of 2024 submitted that there was civil dispute between Viswanathan/A1, and defacto complainant’s clients Veeramani and Selvaraj. The petitioner is A4, wife of Viswanathan, a false case 12/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 projected against Viswanathan, his family members for the incident which is said to have taken place on 22.04.2010. The petitioner is no way connected or reason for A8 to A14 attacking the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/A4 not present in the scene of occurrence. Twelve years after the alleged occurrence, the respondent police roped in the petitioner invoking Section 109 IPC along with other accused. The second respondent having animosity against the petitioner's husband forced the respondent Police to rope in the petitioner without any materials. He would submit that the petitioner's husband purchased the property from Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar vagayara, took recourse through the Civil Court to ascertain his right over the property. Nagaraj/A2, legal heir of Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar executed the sale deed and the said Nagaraj died on 19.09.2011. To constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime and mere proof that crime would have been committed without the inter position of the alleged abettor is not enough to rope in the petitioner on charge of abetment. He further submitted that in this case, nothing is shown that an act has been committed in consequence of the abetment and whether it is committed in consequence of the instigation 13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 or pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. The petitioner's name included merely on assumption and presumption which was created by the second respondent without any basis or proof. The second respondent had some animosity with the family members of the petitioner, for which the petitioner's name falsely implicated. Further, the alleged animosity is also not linked or connected with the alleged attack made on the second respondent. From the charge sheet filed, it is seen that there are 48 witnesses listed and the statements recorded. Going by the uncontroverted statement of the witnesses, it is seen that there is no case made out, there is no direct witness or evidence produced to satisfy the ingredients of offence of abetment.
14.Further, from the statements of L.W.19 and L.W.20, it is seen that the defacto complainant who is the son-in-law of Former ADMK Minister Mr.Veerasamy had clients in Pattukottai and he had been regularly appearing for them attending Courts in Pattukottai. The alleged attack made on the defacto complainant could be for other reasons unrelated to the civil dispute with Viswanathan, which is now projected against the petitioner to be the reason for abetment to engage the other 14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 accused to attack the defacto complainant. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Kishorilal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 and Saju vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 1 SCC 378. Hence, for the incident which is said to have taken place in the year 2010, the petitioner was arrayed as accused merely on assumption and presumption which is not proper.
15.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A5 to A7 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4192 of 2024 in addition to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for A4, submitted that in this case the first and second petitioners/A3 and A5 are the brothers of A1/Viswanathan and the entire family members and known persons of A1 falsely implicated in this case. No doubt there was civil suit pending between A1 and Veeramani and Selvaraj, the defacto complainant is the Advocate for the said Veeramani and Selvaraj. The petitioners are roped in on the allegation that the petitioners abetted the other accused, namely, A8 to A14 in commission of the offence. Admittedly, the petitioners not present in the scene of occurrence. The petitioner are respectable 15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 persons in the Society having their own business and since they happened to be from the family and acquaintance of A1, they are falsely implicated. Further, A1 who died in the year 2007 was implicated for the alleged assault which took place in the year 2010. The defacto complainant’s animosity against A1 is such that even against the dead person, complaint given for a physical assault. The assertion of rights before the Civil Court cannot be taken as a personal animosity, it is a right which is available in law which every citizen can invoke. The petitioners herein are neither plaintiffs nor defendants in any of the suit or any application, but they are roped in as accused only for the reason that they are relatives and acquaintance of A1. The entire statement of witnesses which are annexed in the charge sheet would go to show that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners and invoking Section 109 IPC without any material is not permissible.
16.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions:
1) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618;16/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
2) Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police reported in (2004) 12 SCC 521;
3) Kulwant Singh alias kulbansh Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 15 SCC 670;
4) Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SC 605;
5) Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [Crl.A.No.1628 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021]
17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent strongly opposed the petitioners’ contention and submitted that in this case there are totally 14 accused, A1 is the prime accused, a Former Panchayat President and political bigwig with considerable clout over his clan with muscle and money power. He made a claim that he purchased the property from K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar’s legal heir Nagaraj/A2 vide Document No.575/1997, based on the forged document, A1 attempted to create revenue records including Patta. The Document No.575/1997 a pending document and no revenue records could be created in favour of A1. K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar purchased the property from Sundarathachi vide Document No.2088/1949 dated 17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 01.07.1949 which is much before the Hindu Succession Act coming into force. Prior to it, the female member of a family can enjoy the property but have no right to alienate and hence, the sale deed executed by Sundarathachi in favour of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar is void. In fact, the said K.O.K.Vaithiaynathan Chettiyar filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.613 of 1970 since he suffered a judgment against him in O.S.No. 64 of 1969. The High Court dismissed the contention of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar confirming that the vendor Sundarathachi had no legal right to execute the sale deed and this judgment was passed on 29.04.1976. Now A1 claims that he purchased the property from A2, legal heir of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar, using this forged document claiming right over the property and obstructions created by implanting obstructors who are sitting over the property at the behest of A1. The High Court declared the obstructors to vacate the property and deliver the possession of the property to the said Veeramani and Selvaraj which has not been done. The defacto complainant took effective steps in pursuing the EP and to remove the encroachment and obstructors, who are squatting over the property. The property is enjoyed by the petitioners group. A1 and his family members 18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 creating problems to the defacto complainant, an Advocate practicing in Chennai who used to visit Pattukottai for the case and he was constantly under threat fearing for his life and limb.
18.He would Submit that the defacto complainant sent representations to the Police which was not acted upon. He took all effective steps to execute the delivery warrant to remove the encroachers and the obstructors. This being so, on 22.04.2010 the defacto complainant was attacked in public by A8 to A14 and thereafter, a case in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai and the investigation was on a slow pace. The defacto complainant filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7549 of 2011 and on the orders of this Court dated 11.04.2022, the case was transferred to CBCID, who took up investigation and found the motive and the reason for the attack on the defacto complainant found no rivals in any manner apart from A1 and his family members for the reason that the defacto complainant took effective steps to retrieve the property for his clients Veeramani and Selvaraj. Since the defacto complainant not deterred even after the threat by A1 and his family members and 19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 continued to defend his clients, he was attacked mercilessly using deadly weapons in the public using knife, iron rod and wooden logs. The defacto complainant was rushed to the Hospital in Pattukottai, thereafter to the Hospital at Thanjavur where he took treatment as inpatient and thereafter he was referred to Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai where he took treatment as inpatient. After the CBCID taking up investigation, they visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahaza, rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the accused who admitted the commission of offence, the witnesses narrated the role played by A1 and his family members, who were squatting over the property of the defacto complainant’s clients. The petitioners with their community dominance and muscle power, successfully kept away the defacto complainant’s clients Veeramani and Selvaraj, who are entitled to enjoy the property which is a constitutional right. A4 in this case is collecting rents from the squatters/obstructors in the property. Further, the other petitioners are acting in unison with each other to ensure that their dominance is not questioned or dented and the property cannot be given away whatever may be orders of the Court. A8 to A14 are the hirelings who had nothing to do with the defacto complainant in 20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 any manner and they have no reason to attack him, admitted in their confession. The conspiracy and abetment committed by each of the accused which fact confirmed by the witnesses listed. On collection of materials, charge sheet filed. The petitioners cannot absolve themselves by merely saying that they were not present in the scene of occurrence and they have been roped in, only for the reason they are the family members and acquaintance of A1 would not proper. No doubt they have been charged for the offence of abetting. Abetment cannot be brushed aside since there are sufficient materials. A person to get absolved from abetment has to prove by producing some positive evidence to show that they have take all steps and they are not the reason for commission of offence. Hence, the points raised by the petitioner are factual which has to be necessarily decided during trial and not in a quash petition. The petitioners successfully protracting the progress of trial by filing one petition or other, now a set of persons have come by filing the quash petition and thereafter, after others might take turns by filing similar petitions and further protract the trial. Hence, appropriate direction to be given to proceed with the trial and complete the same without delay within a stipulated period. As regards the prosecution, they are ready to 21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 produce witnesses without delay, in any event the entire trial process can be completed within a period of six months.
19.The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the defacto complainant/second respondent submitted that in this case A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 contention is that they were not present in the scene of occurrence and there is no confession to connect them with other accused cannot be taken on face value. The petitioners are the beneficiary who collect rents and derive from the property which is squatted by the encroachers and obstructors at the instance of Viswanthan family members. The manner in which the suit protracted, delay and obstruction caused in the EP proceedings are testimony to the active role played by the petitioners. The petitioners are family members and acquaintance of A1 who all act in unison with each other to show their supremacy and control over the area. The defacto complainant is an Advocate following ethics of the noble profession, put considerable years of practice and defending his clients. He has no personal interest over the property or personal animosity against the rival parties in the civil suit. A1 being a political person with men and muscle 22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 power, former Panchayat President in a deceitful manner by using A2, created forged document vide Document No.575 of 1997 which is a pending document. Despite the fact that it is a pending document, A1 approached the Revenue Authorities for issuance of Patta, attempted to record his ownership and possession in the revenue records.
20.The learned senior counsel further submitted that in this case, there have been long battle of civil suit from the year 1964 and finally, EP was filed by L.W.12 and L.W.13 in the year 1988. Till the second respondent was engaged by them, civil suits successfully put on hold earlier by filing successive petitions from District Munsif Court to Sub Court and from Sub Court to District Court and to High Court, civil suit protracted, A1 sustained the obstruction and encroachment by adopting all methods. Even in the EP proceedings though it was filed in the year 1988, there was no progress in the EP only after the defacto complainant entered appearance for Veeramani and Selvaraj in the year 1999. Thereafter some steps taken by the defacto complainant, the case could not be listed for one reason or other, it could be listed only on 27.01.2003 and finally on 31.12.2003 the Sub Court, Pattukottai ordered delivery of 23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 property. Again EA filed which was dismissed and finally C.M.S.A. filed before the High Court and this Court by order dated 19.03.2008 ordered eviction and delivery of property but thereafter to, obstruction continued and the property not delivered. The defacto complainant took steps by filing petitions for execution of delivery warrant. The clout of A1 is such that the Bailiff taking the warrant, could not execute the same, on one such incident, A3 obstructed the Bailiff, a public servant and chased him away obstructing the public servant to discharge his duties, hence a case in Crime No.245 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC registered. It is reported now that the criminal complaint closed as further action dropped which shows the influence and clout of the accused. The defacto complainant relentlessly fighting for a cause and as an Advocate defending his clients, for which, A1 and his men threatened the defacto complainant even in the court and acquaintance and the relatives of A1 gone to the house of the defacto complainant in Chennai and threatened him, but the defacto complainant was relentless and defending his clients. On 22.04.2010, the defacto complainant went to the Sub Court, Pattukottai to file petitions, pay batta to execute the warrant and thereafter, he went to have his lunch, at that 24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 time, A8 to A14 without any motive or reason as mercenaries attacked the defacto complainant mercilessly. Later, he could be saved by the timely intervention of Dr.Anbarasan who gave first aid treatment in Pattukottai, took him to Thanjavur and thereafter to Chennai where he was treated as inpatient. The defacto complainant had to continue his treatment, again got admitted in the year 2012 as inpatient and now he is with follow up treatment. The defacto complainant, an Advocate with ethics defending his clients, for which, using muscle and money power a well orchestrated plan executed to eliminate him but for the timely intervention, he was saved. The learned senior counsel would submit that on the complaint given by the second respondent, the local police registered a case but no action taken and hence, the second respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition. At the instance of this Court, investigation transferred to CBCID and police protection granted to the defacto complainant. Now, the investigation completed and charge sheet filed. The witnesses clearly spoken about the role played by each of the accused. L.W.12 to L.W.18 speak about the civil suit and the defacto complainant defending his clients and taking all steps to retrieve the property. L.W.24 and L.W.25 confirm squatting on the disputed 25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 property, as tenants and they forced to pay rents to the family of A1. L.W.28 and L.W.29 speak about the compromise talk initiated with the defacto complainant at the instance of the accused. Further, Doctors confirm the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. The points raised by the petitioners are factual. He further submitted that the decisions relied on by the petitioners are for abetment which is caused within the family with regard to some dispute in the family life which are not applicable to the facts of the above case. Hence, prayed for dismissal.
21.In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following decisions:
1) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kanha alias Omprakash reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605;
2) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh and others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 268;
3) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688;
4) Chhanga alias Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 11 SCC 115;
5) Jage Ram and others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366;26/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
6) State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat and another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 149;
7) Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466;
8) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 285;
9) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303;
10)Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 10 SCC 765;
11)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 26;
12)Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 15 SCC 667;
13)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem alias Chamaru and another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554;
14)Ram lal and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmi reported in (1999) 2 SCC 213.
22.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case, the defacto complainant is an Advocate who was attacked mercilessly in public, with knife, iron rod and wooden logs by A8 to A14, who have nothing against the defacto complainant, but for the abetment of the petitioner, there is no reason for 27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 the attack with deadly weapons. The defacto complainant, a practicing Advocate with ethics, it is his fundamental duty, obligation and commitment to appear for his client. In this case, the defacto complainant appeared on behalf of his clients Veeramani and Selvaraj in a civil suit. The trajectory of the civil case would prove how at each stage from the year 1964, from the Munsif Court, Sub Court, District Court and before the High Court. It took such long years to reach finality. In this background, proceedings in E.P.Nos.50 and 51 of 1988 has to be considered. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj unable to find Advocate to fight their case and EP was put in cold storage, unable to be listed before the EP Court. They took all steps to engage an Advocate within Pattukottai and the District. The influence of A1 and his family members were such that no one could came forward to aid Veeramani and Selvaraj. The petitioners’ influence radiating throughout the District. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj lastly found a fearless Advocate engaged the defacto complainant practicing in Chennai. The defacto complainant took up the case in the year 1999 and pursuing the case on behalf of his clients, Veeramani and Selvaraj. The defacto complainant pursuing the case from the year 1999, but only in the year 28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 2003 he could bring the case to the list and finally on 31.12.2003 the Sub Court ordered delivery of property. Thereafter, E.A. filed by the obstructors got dismissed and thereafter appeal filed before the District Court which was also dismissed on 28.10.2005, against which C.M.S.A.Nos.30 to 35 of 2006 filed before the High Court. This Court on 19.03.2008 directed the obstructors to vacate the property within nine months and ordered delivery. Despite the order of this Court, the obstructors not vacated and handed over the possession of property. The obstructors frequently changed. Even the execution warrant could not be executed and on one instance A3 restrained and threatened the public servant while executing the warrant and a case in Crime No.245 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC registered against him. This FIR now reported closed as further action dropped. The Police aid was denied for the reason that there is no enough Police strength to ensure execution of warrant of eviction. The defacto complainant could not be deterred in pursuing his clients case, but the other side successfully obstructed the execution of EP warrant and scutlled the due process of law.
29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
23.Finally, the defacto complainant went to the Sub Court to file appropriate petition and to pay batta for execution of warrant on 22.04.2010 and thereafter, he went to have his lunch to a mess, at that time, A8 to A14 armed with deadly weapons attacked him mercilessly in public. A8 to A4 had nothing against the defacto complainant, they acted as mercenaries at the instigation and abetment of the other accused. The eye witnesses to the occurrence clearly spoken about the attack made by A8 to A14 with knife, iron road and wooden logs. The defacto complainant’s friend Dr.Anbarasan took the injured to hospital in Pattukottai and thereafter to Thanjavur where he took treatment as inpatient, from there referred to Hospital in Chennai. Due to the timely intervention of his friend and medical aid, the defacto complainant’s life could be saved. It is admitted that A1 in this case, a Former Panchayat President, entered into a sale agreement for the subject property with A2, legal heir of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar, earlier all Civil Courts till the highest Court of the State, confirmed sale deed executed by Sundarathachi in favour of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar is void. Despite the same, Document No.575 of 1997 dated 16.07.1997 created between A1 and A2, thereafter using this as an anchor shield intervened 30/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 in the EP proceedings and stalled the EP filed in the year 1988 till 04.06.2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are family members and acquaintance of A1, who is the fulcrum, ensured that the property is not taken back by the defacto complainant’s clients, but for the defacto complainant relentless pursuit the case could not have reached the present stage and it is the defacto complainant who had been the spoiler to A1 and his family members in continuing their design in enjoyment and benefits over the property. Further, the petitioners felt that the 2nd respondent dented their ego and authority within their clan and public which affected them badly and hence, they all conspired, engaged the assailants to do away the 2nd respondent. The assailants who have nothing against the defacto complainant mercilessly attacked him in public with deadly weapons. If an ethical lawyer is meted with such treatment in this manner, then no person can live without fear for their life and limb. Enjoyment of property is a fundamental right under our Constitution. There are enough and more materials to proceed against the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the case in S.C.No.47 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
24.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Trial Court to proceed with the case without further delay as far as practicable on day-to-day basis and shall ensure that the said trial is concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
01.04.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No cse To
1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID (South), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
32/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 01.04.2025 33/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )