Madras High Court

T.M.Ramalingam vs Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2021

                                                                         Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        Dated :12.07.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                          Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016 and
                                          Crl.M.P.Nos.1164 and 1165 of 2016 and
                                                   1309 and 1310 of 2016

                     T.M.Ramalingam                            ... Petitioner in both the petitions


                                                               Vs.

                     1. Inspector of Police,
                        Dharapuram Police Station,
                        Dharapuram,
                        Tirupur District                       ...1st Respondent in both the petitions

2. Siva Kumar ... 2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016

2. S.K.Kaliaperumal Chettiar ... 2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016

Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call

for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.Nos.349 and 350 of

2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram,

Tiruppur District and quash the same respectively.







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                        Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

                                       For Petitioners        : Mr.S.Feroz Khan

                                       For Respondent         : Mr.E.Rajthilak for R1
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                                No appearance for R2

                                                 COMMON          ORDER

Since the issues involved in both the petitions are one and the same,

they are taken up together and a Common Order is being passed.

2. The present Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.Nos.349

and 350 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Dharapuram, Tiruppur District and quash the same respectively.

3. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2450

of 2016, as per the FIR, is that the 2nd respondent, viz., defacto

complainant, had lodged a complaint stating that he is doing commission

business with regard to groundnut along with his son, namely Subbayan,

and he came to know the petitioner on account of the same. Further, the

2nd respondent and his son being familiar with the petitioner had purchased

the land to an extent of 0.09 ½ Cents for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

petitioner and a sum of Rs.3,92,825/- was paid by the 2nd respondent's son

and for a balance sum of Rs.7,175/-, 24 months time was granted. By

stating all the said facts, an agreement was entered into between them on

04.07.2002. Thereafter, when the 2nd respondent and his son had

requested the petitioner to comply with the said agreement, the petitioner

failed to act as per the agreement, hence the 2nd respondent had filed a suit

in O.S.No.74 of 2007 before the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram and the

same is pending. In the meanwhile, since an information has been

received that the petitioner is building a house, shop and that his son is not

feeling well, the 2nd respondent and another person, namely, Sivakumar,

[similarly cheated person, 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016 by

the petitioner] has approached the petitioner's house requesting to

handover the properties and comply with the agreement, but the petitioner

had declined the request and threatened with dire consequences. On

account of the same, a case has been registered in Crime No.2591 of 2011

for offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC.

4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2195

of 2016, as per the FIR, is that the 2nd respondent, viz., defacto

complainant, had lodged a complaint stating that he is doing commission

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

business with regard to ground nut and the petitioner had purchased the

groundnuts from 22.11.2001 to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/- through bills.

Therefore, the petitioner has given the cheques and the same was returned

due to 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, when the 2nd respondent had

intimated the petitioner that he will proceed with the return cheque to the

court, the petitioner had pledged his land to the 2nd respondent for a sum of

Rs.4,50,000/- on 01.02.2002 for a period of two years and the petitioner

had received the said returned cheques. The petitioner did not evince any

interest to pay back the money for a period of three years, however,

created three receipts, as if the petitioner had paid the money to the 2nd

respondent. When the same was questioned by the 2nd respondent, the

petitioner had threatened with dire consequences. On account of the

same, a case has been registered in Crime No.2586 of 2011 for offences

under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. Seeking to quash both

the complaints, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Mr.S.Feroz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners with respect

to Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016 would submit that with regard to the dispute in

the land in question, a O.S.No.74 of 2007 was filed before the learned

Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram and the same was dismissed on the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

ground that both the parties have not attended the court. As soon as the

said suit was dismissed, the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016

had given a complaint on 04.10.2011 and the same was registered in

Crime No.2588 of 2011 under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, after four

years and 22 days, the charge sheet was filed on 28.10.2015, in which the

above referred sections of IPC were deleted and charge sheet was filed

under Section 506(ii) of IPC, which is not valid.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a back door

entry tactics was adopted by giving a false complaint and attempting to

convert a civil case into a criminal case. Subsequently, a restoration

petition was filed by the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016 and by

admitted the condone delay petition, the same was restored by the Sub

Court, Dharapuram in the year 2014. Therefore, pleaded that the

C.C.No.350 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram is

not maintainable.

7. Mr.S.Feroz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to

Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016 would submit that as per FIR, the alleged

occurrence had taken place on 22.11.2001 and the complaint was given

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

against the petitioner on 05.10.2011, i.e., the complaint was given after 10

years. Thereafter, the FIR has been registered under Sections 468, 471,

420 and 506(i) of IPC and after 4 years, 22 days, the charge sheet was

filed on 28.10.2015, in which all the above Sections of IPC were deleted

and charged only under Section 506(ii) of IPC.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners represented that no

attempt was made by the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016

to file neither a complaint nor any legal steps or any approach to the court

since the year 2001. Further, after a gap of 15 years, as per Limitation Act,

the claim is barred for any recovery of dues / amounts and instead of

approaching the civil courts, the petitioner has approached the Criminal

court by adopting a back door entry tactics.

9. Mr.E.Rajthilak, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits

that police have investigated the case thoroughly and have laid charge

sheet before the court for the offences under Section 506(ii) IPC and the

same are taken on file in C.C.Nos.249 and 350 of 2015 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, which are pending. Moreover, a prima

facie case has been made out, in order to frame charges against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

petitioner and there is absolutely no ground to quash the proceedings.

Hence, the present cases does not need any interference in the hands of

this Court and pleaded to dismiss the petitions. Further, the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also submits that earlier, the petitions filed

by the petitioner seeking to quash the same complaints were dismissed as

withdrawn by this Court on 17.12.2015 in Crl.O.P.Nos.20408 and 20409 of

2014.

10. Though notice and private notice were ordered to the 2nd

respondent in both the petitions, there is no representation on behalf of

them either in-person or through learned counsel.

11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents placed on record.

Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016

12. On going through the complaint lodged by the defacto

complainant in Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016, it is clear that the petitioner has

sold his land to an extent of 0.09 cents to the son of the defacto

complainant and the same was registered by way of an agreement, for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

which, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was fixed. According to the defacto

complainant, he has paid a sum of Rs.3,92,825/- and for the balance sum

of Rs.7,195/-, 24 months time was fixed and the same was reduced by way

of an agreement and the same was also registered on 04.07.2002. Also

the contention of the defacto complainant that when he urged the petitioner

to act in accordance with the said agreement, the petitioner threatened with

dire consequences, creates doubt in the mind of this Court, because of the

reason, when the defacto complainant's son had paid a sum of

Rs.3,92,825/-, for a balance sum of Rs.7,195/-, 24 months time was

granted, which is very large that too for a meager sum.

13. That apart, when the occurrence, viz., agreement was

registered on 04.07.2002, it is not known why the defacto complaint had

lodged a complaint almost after a decade, ie., in the year 2011. Further, it

is clear from the complaint that on account of the allegations against the

petitioner, a Civil Suit in O.S.No.74 of 2007 is pending before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016

14. On going through the complaint lodged by the defacto

complainant in Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016, it is clear that on account of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

Groundnut business transaction between petitioner and the defacto

complainant, there was a due for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defacto

complainant and on account of the same, the petitioner had given cheques.

Since the cheques were returned on account of 'insufficient funds' the

defacto complaint informed the petitioner that he would pursue the case in

court, immediately petitioner had mortgaged his land for a period of two

years and the same was registered in Registrar Office, Dharapuram in

document no.432/2002. It is also the contention of the defacto complainant

that the cheques were taken by the petitioner and amount was not

returned, after a period of two years, but the petitioner had created bogus

receipts, as if he had returned the money to the defacto complainant, when

the same was questioned, the petitioner had threatened with dire

consequences. The said contention also cannot be accepted because of

the reason, when the alleged transaction took place in the year 2001, and

the petitioner had mortgaged the property for a period of two years, atleast,

after two years, the defacto complainant could have lodged a complaint,

however, the defacto complainant, had lodged a complaint only on

05.10.2011, almost after a decade, which also creates a doubt.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

15. In order to prove that Section 506(ii) of IPC has not been

attracted, it is necessary for this Court to extract the relevant part of the

complaints, lodged by the defacto complainants, as per the FIR, which is

as follows:-

Complaint by 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2195 of 2016

“jpUk;g gzk; nfl;Lte;jhy; Ms; itj;J moj;J tpLtjhf kpul;o te;jhh;”

Complaint by 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2450 of 2016

“jpUk;g jpUk;g te;J ,J Fwpj;J nfl;lhy; ,nj ,lj;jpy; btl;o bfhd;W tpLntd;”

The said statements also corroborates with the persons, who had given

statements under Section 161(iii) Cr.P.C., There is no iota of evidence to

show that which weapon, was used by the petitioner to attack the defacto

complainants and what was the injury caused by the petitioner to them.

While that being the case, the Investigation officer, Dharapuram, without

any basis had laid the charge sheets by including the offence punishable

under Section 506(ii) of IPC, without any basis, which definitely needs

interference of this Court.

16. That apart, a mere threat is not sufficient to attract the charge of

criminal intimidation. In other words, the threat should be a real one and

not just a mere word. The above said complaints does not constitute

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and the statements obtained from the

persons under Section 161(iii) Cr.P.C., only supports the complaints. For

better reference, Section 506 of IPC is extracted hereunder:-

“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc., and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

17. It is pertinent to point out that mere outburst of accused at time of

altercation or threats given without any intention to cause alarm, would not

fall within mischief of Section 506(ii) of IPC and hence offence under

Section 506(ii) of IPC is not made out, as per decision of this Court

reported in 2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) 374 [Tamilselvan Vs. Inspector of

Police]. Further to attract an offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC, which is

rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment, which may

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.Nos.2195 and 2450 of 2016

extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere

word when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and

also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened

actually, as per decision of this Court reported in 1988(2) MWN (Cr) 187

[Selladurai Vs. State of Tamilnadu]

18. Apart from that, alleged offences have been taken place in the

year 2002, but the complaints have been lodged only in the year 2011,

which is nearly after a decade. The non-issuance of the complaint

immediately after the offence taken place creates an adverse circumstance

against the defacto complainants. When there is no whisper in the

complaints made by the defacto complainants, as what was the weapon

used by the petitioner to attack them in order to attract offence under

Section 506(ii) of IPC and in the absence of any injury caused to them, the

respondent police for the best reasons known to them had included the

offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC without any basis, which creates

considerable suspicion and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.