Madras High Court
Elango vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 November, 2021
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P. No.8787 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.6288 of 2017
1.Elango
S/o.P.Kuppan
2.Logu
S/o.P.Chandrakanthan
3.Parthipan
S/o.P.Chandrakanthan
4.C.Sridhar
S/o.P.Chandrakanthan ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Inspector of Police
S9, Pazhavanthangal Police Station,
Chennai. ....Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to quash the Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.69 of 2011 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Chandraprabu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
(This case has been heard through Video Conference)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report
filed under Sections 147, 294,(b), 353, 336 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
2. The crux of the prosecution charge is that while the officials of the
then municipality based on the interim orders obtained in their favour
proceeding to remove the encroachment, the accused has unlawfully
assembled and restrained the officials and also intimidated them, besides
uttering abusive words, thereby, the petitioners have committed offence
under Sections 147, 294,(b), 353, 336 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the basis of the complaint is motivated, in fact, on the date of alleged
encroachment, the accused are enjoying the benefit of order and it was
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
confirmed in C.M.A. also. It has been recorded by this Court in
C.R.P.No.261 of 2012. Therefore, the contention of the defacto complainant
that only on the basis of the interim order in their favour, they have tried to
remove encroachment is highly improbable. At any event, the final report,
on the face value would indicates that in fact, there is no materials
whatsoever available on record to show that the above materials collected by
the prosecution would not constitute any of the offence charged. Hence,
prayed for quashing the charge sheet.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent would
submit that the accused prevented the officials from discharging the duties
and abused them.
5. Perused the materials. As contended by the learned counsel
appearing for petitioners that the allegation of the defacto complainant is
that they proceeded to remove the encroachment on the basis of interim
order passed in their favour is not correct and the judgment of this Court in
C.R.P.No.961 of 2012, in paragraph 7 itself clearly indicates that only the
accused are enjoying the benefit of order, which was confirmed in C.M.A.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
and C.R.P. Be that as it may. The allegation in the prosecution case is that
the accused have restrained P.W.1 and others while discharging their duties
and the statement of witnesses available on record indicates that except
contending that the accused has unlawfully assembled and prevented them,
there is no specific overtact as to the nature of offence committed. No
specific overtact has been stated. Further, from the judgment of this court, it
appears that there is a conflict and civil dispute exist between the parties.
When the accused already enjoying the interim order passed by the civil
court, they have assembled at the relevant point of time in the place, which
was actually in their possession such assembly cannot be construed mean
that that they formed unlawful assembly. It is natural for the person to be in
their place, in whose favour injunction is already in existence. Therefore, the
offence of unlawful assembly will not be attracted. Similarly, the allegation
of wrongful restraint and using of abusive words was also general in nature.
Even such allegations are taken is stated as proved, this Court is of the view
that the allegation as alleged in the complaint would not constitute any of
the offence and it would also indicates that it is clear abuse of process of
law. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge
sheet initiated in C.C.No.69 of 2011 as against the petitioners is hereby
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
16.11.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
rpp/gd
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Alandur, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police
S9, Pazhavanthangal Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.8787 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rpp/gd
Crl.O.P.No.8787 of 2017
16.11.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
