Madras High Court
G.Velusamy vs A.Nagajothi on 25 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.21659 of 2019
and Crl.MP.Nos.11200 & 11201 of 2019
1. G.Velusamy
2. V.Mariammal
3. M,Muthulakshmi
4. R.Muthu
5. P.Malarselvi
6. P.Prabhakaran
Petitioners
vs.
A.Nagajothi Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.241 of 2019
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravikumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Naveen chandar
ORDER
This petition has been filed quash the proceedings in C.C.No.241 of
2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. The grievance of the respondent is that the subject property was
settled in favour of her husband and after she lost her husband in the year
2013, the first and second petitioners cancelled the deed of settlement. The
further case of the respondent is that she challenged the cancellation deed
by way of filing a writ petition before this Court and this Court allowed
the writ petition and quashed the registration of the cancellation deed. The
further case of the respondent is that one Ravi had been given possession
of the property and when this was questioned, she is said to have been
threatened and abused by him.
3. Initially, the respondent gave a police complaint and the same
was enquired and closed on 14.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondent has
filed a private complaint before the Court below against the petitioners
and the Court below has taken cognizance of the complaint for the offence
under Section 506(i) of IPC against the petitioners. The Court below
deleted Ravi from the array of accused persons.
4. Heard Mr.M.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.T.Naveen chandar, learned counsel for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. A reading of the entire complaint shows that there is a property
dispute among the parties and when the respondent had claimed her right,
she is said to have been abused by the petitioners. It is stated in the
complaint that the petitioners had threatened the respondent with dire
consequences.
6. In the considered view of this Court, even if the allegations made
in complaint are taken as it is, no offence of criminal intimidation has
made out. It is now settled that an empty threat by itself will not make out
an offence of criminal intimidation unless there is evidence to show that
there was some overt act which makes such a threat a real one. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Kumar @ Thambi
Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police
Station, Dindigul District reported in 2012 (2) MLJ Crl.154 and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thirumagan and another Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Alagarkovil Road
Madurai reported in 2019 (3) MLJ Crl.295.
7. In the result, the continuation of the criminal complaint against
the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of Court which requires the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. The quashing of the complaint will not in any way have any impact
on the civil proceedings that is said to be pending between the parties.
This Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly.
25.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
rli
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rli
Crl.O.P No.21659 of 2019
and Crl.MP.Nos.11200 & 11201 of 2019
25.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
