Madras High Court
Kamaraj vs State Represented By on 13 December, 2021
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11166, 11167, 14775 and 14776 of 2017
1.Kamaraj
2.Ramachandran
3.Rengasamy
4.Sivasubrmanian . . . Petitioners
(In Crl.O.P.No.25694/2017)
Kaviraj . . . Petitioner
(In Crl.O.P.No.18291/2017)
Versus
1.State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thiruvarur District.
2.Thamaraiselvam . . . Respondents
(In both Crl.O.Ps)
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the
District and Sessions Court at Thiruvarur District.
Page No:1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
(In both Crl.O.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
(In both Crl.O.Ps) Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
: No appearance for R2
-----
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the criminal
proceedings, in S.C.No.60 of 2017, filed against the accused, for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of PPDL Act,
pending on the file of the District and Sessions Court at Thiruvarur District.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 3/2/2014, the accused
trespassed into the land belonging to the de facto complainant and destroyed the
fence and saplings of trees worth about Rs.59,450/-.
3. Heard Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the
first respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.
Page No:2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that
originally the petitioners have purchased the property, to an extent of 1.77
acres, belong to one Jaya lakshmi, by a registered sale deed, through the power
agent, on 4/9/2006, whereas, the de facto complainant claiming right over the
property, on the basis of a sale deed, dated 3/4/2006. Hence, the defacto
complainant had filed the suit for declaration. Similarly, the petitioners have
also filed a suit for bare injunction. However, the suit for bare injunction was
decreed after a delay of 497 days. An application has been filed to set aside the
decree and judgment. Now it is the contention that trial court has disposed of
both the suits, filed by the de facto complainant and accused. As against the
same, appeal was filed by the de facto complainant and the same was allowed
on 03.01.2019. Aggrieved against the same, present complaint has been filed.
5. It is his contention that now the first appeal went in favour of the de
facto complainant also set aside by this Court in Second Appeal Nos.632 and
633 of 2014 and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court. Hence it is
his contention that the entire allegations in the final report is the result of civil
dispute and complaint has been engineered only after the First Appeal was
Page No:3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
allowed in favour of the de facto complainant and submitted that even the entire
materials collected by the prosecution would not show any damage to the trees
or saplings or even to the fence. Hence submitted that this entire prosecution is
motivated and result of the civil dispute and hence seeks to quash the
proceedings.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
State submitted that the prosecution has examined the witnesses and filed a
final report and therefore, opposed for quashing the proceedings.
7. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the final report when the
investigation has been completed and final report has been filed. But, at the
same time, when the Court finds that the entire prosecution is motivated or
result of civil dispute and the materials collected by the prosecution itself do not
constitute any offence, continuing the prosecution is nothing but a futile exercise
and abuse of process of law and the same can be interfered by exercising power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Page No:4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
8. Filing of two Civil Suits, viz., one by the accused and another by the
de facto complainant, is not disputed by the first respondent. The law was set
in motion. On the basis of First Information Report filed at the direction of this
Court in Criminal Original Petition No.9102 of 2014. The very complaint itself
indicate that as if on 03.02.2014 in the mid night, accused entered into the
property and damaged the saplings of trees worth about Rs.59,450/-. The final
report and the statements recorded by the prosecution clearly indicate that the
witnesses said to have identified the accused only on the use of torch light in the
midnight. It is to be noted that filing of the cases is not disputed and that this
complaint was filed, after the first appeal went in favour of the de facto
complainant. Originally the suits as submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners tried jointly and both the suits were dismissed by the trial
Court only after the first appeal was allowed in favour of the de facto
complainant.
9. It is also relevant to note that in the application filed to set aside the ex
parte decree passed against the de facto complainant in O.S.No.133 of 2006,
there was no whisper about the damages caused to the property by the present
Page No:5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
accused. The very affidavit placed before this Court itself indicate that there
were dispute over the property and it is the contention of the defacto
complainant that in a petition before the trial Court that only in April 2008
when she went to the property, she came to know that somebody has cultivated
and there is no whisper whatsoever with regard to the alleged trespass made on
03.02.2014 and appeal was disposed of in the year 2014. After that the present
complaint has been filed which has been investigated and filed final report.
10. Perusal of the records, particularly the observation Mahazar
prepared by the investigation officer does not even show any damage to the
property, particularly saplings and statements of the witnesses also indicate that
they had identified with the help of torch light in the midnight which is highly
improbable. All these facts clearly indicate that the prosecution is motivated and
result of the Civil Dispute. In such a view of the matter this Court is inclined to
quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the District and
Sessions Court at Thiruvarur District.
11.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Charge
sheet filed in S.C.No.60 of 2017, pending on the file of the District and
Page No:6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
Sessions Court at Thiruvarur District is quashed. Consequently, connected
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.12.2021
psa/mvs.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
To
1.The District and Sessions Court,
Thiruvarur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thiruvarur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No:7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR.J
psa/mvs
Crl. O.P. Nos.25694 and 18291 of 2017
13.12.2021
Page No:8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
