Madras High Court
G.Ramachandran vs T.Rajendan on 25 November, 2021
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 25.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14504 and 14505 of 2017
1.G.Ramachandran
2.D.Moorthy . . . Petitioners
Versus
T.Rajendan . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records and complaint pending in C.C.No.259 of 2017, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2, Chidambaram and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Antony Jesus
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sridharan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Private
Complaint in C.C.No.259 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court
No. 2, Chidambaram.
Page No:1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
2.The main crux of the allegations made in the private complaint is that
the accused along with his henchmen, entered into the premises of the Principal
of the de facto complainant and damaged the compound wall and when the de
facto complainant questioned the same, they caused criminal intimidation
against the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3.The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is
that the entire case is a result of civil dispute. The learned counsel further
submitted that a suit for injunction was filed by the de facto complainant
against the accused in respect of the subject property, which has also ended in
favour of the accused, wherein, a clear finding has been recorded that the
subject property, i.e., the compound wall was situated within the premises of
the accused. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the question of
demolition or damaging the wall by the accused does not arise at all. The
further contention of the learned counsel is that, on the date of alleged
occurrence, A1 was never present at the place of occurrence and he had been
deputed to some other place. Hence, the private complaint as against the
petitioners has to be quashed.
Page No:2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials
available on record.
5.Precisely, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to
establish the plea of alibi before this Court. This Court is not a trial Court to
appreciate the evidence to give a finding that the plea of alibi is proved before
this Court. It is a matter of evidence. The burden is always on the person who
seeks to establish the plea of alibi. It is for the petitioner to establish the same
before the trial Court. Moreover, as there are allegations in respect of causing
damage to property and causing injuries, I am not inclined to quash the
complaint at the threshold.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
7.The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the matter on
its own merits, as expeditiously as possible.
Page No:3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
8.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks
indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioners. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the
petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies,
answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., passing of
judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court.
25.11.2021
psa/mkn
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
To
The Judicial Magistrate-2,
Chidambaram.
Page No:4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
psa/mkn
Crl. O.P. No. 25188 of 2017
25.11.2021
Page No:5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
