Palanivel vs Thiyagarajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 23899 Mad

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATE: 06.12.2021

                                                        CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                               Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017
                                                          &
                                           Crl.M.P.Nos.8076 & 8077 of 2017


                     1. Palanivel
                        S/o. Nalla Gounder

                     2. Nallammal
                        W/o.Palanivel

                     3. Sampathkumar
                        S/o. Palanivel

                     4. Saraswathi
                        W/o. Sampathkumar                        ... Petitioners    / Accused

                                                          Vs.

                     Thiyagarajan                                 ... Respondent/Complainant

                     Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for
                     records in C.C.No.17 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,
                     Rasipuram, Salem and quash the same.


                                  For Petitioners     : Mr.V.V.Sairam


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017




                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

private complaint filed against the petitioners in C.C.No.17 of 2017

pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem for the

alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 326 and 506(ii) IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is the case of the complainant that there is a civil dispute

between the parties and that on 01.10.2014 at about 11.30am, the accused

entered the disputed land and attacked the mother of the de facto

complainant due to which the mother of the de facto complainant

sustained fracture in the right hand, besides causing other injuries

resulting in the filing of the private complaint. However, the police has

closed the case as mistake of fact.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

that the civil dispute has already attained finality and the second appeal

filed by the first petitioner in S.A.No.934 of 2015 was disposed of by this

Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2017 permitting the

defendants to use the common pathway situated in S.No.95/1 for laying a

pipeline to take water from the common well. The operative portion of

the aforesaid order reads as follows:

'8. Thus, there is no controversy, that exists any longer. Accordingly, while confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below, it is hereby clarified that,

(i) the defendants are permitted to use the common pathway situated in S.No.95/1 for laying a pipeline to take water from the common well situated in S.No.95/1 to only those lands mentioned in Ex.A1;

(ii) the defendants can lay a pipe line and continue with the same to take water to their lands, owned by them under Ex.A1 and also the one purchased by them, situated in S.No.146/2D, subject to the rider that, in respect of the land situated in S.No.146/2D, water from the common well situated in S.No.95/1 shall not be used; and

(iii) the defendants can use the common pathway in S.No.95/1 to take water either from S.No.96/5 or S.No.96/3 to S.No.146/2D and viceversa.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since

second appeal has already reached finality, the private complaint, which

has been pressed into service in respect of the same issue and hence, the

same is liable to be quashed.

5. This Court perused the entire materials placed before this

Court. If the Court finds that the very complaint itself is result of

motivation or allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence,

there is no difficulty in quashing the private complaint at the threshold,

however, if the allegations in the complaint indicate that there are

violence unleashed which resulted in grevious hurt, the same could be

proved only after examining the parties and therefore, this Court is not

inclined to quash the private complaint. At this stage, learned counsel for

the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court to dispense with the

personal appearance of the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

However, taking note of the nature of the dispute, personal appearance of

the petitioners is dispensed with except for receiving copies and

answering the charges u/s.313 Cr.P.C questioning and any other hearing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017

that may be fixed by the trial Court. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.12.2021 Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/No gpa/gba

To

1. Judicial Magistrate Rasipuram, Salem

2. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,

gpa/gba

Crl.O.P.No.12366 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.8076 & 8077 of 2017

06.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis