Madras High Court
P.Raji vs State Represented By on 6 September, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
P.Raji ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Hosur Town Police Station,
Hosur. ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertaining to C.C.No.206 of 2009 pending on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Elayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.E.Rajthilak
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.206 of 2009 pending
on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the
owner of a complex, namely Kannappa Complex which consists of 8
shops. In the said complex, the petitioner herein was a tenant in the year
2003 and he occupied 3 shops in the said premises. The petitioner is
irregular and default in paying rent. On 31.07.2008 at about 8.30 p.m.,
while the defacto complainant entered into his premises, some persons
were digging a hole before his complex, the same was questioned by the
defacto complainant, in view of the same, this petitioner attacked the
defacto complainant with iron rods and thereby caused injury and hence
the defacto complainant lodged a complaint.
3. The case of the petitioner is that one Anjappa, had given a
complaint and the respondent had filed a case in Crime No.848 of 2008
against him, the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Hosur for the offences punishable under Section 341, 324 & 506(ii)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
of IPC. Further the said case is taken on file in C.C.No.206 of 2009. The
petitioner is arrayed as A.1 and no case is made out against this petitioner
as alleged by the prosecution. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
herein has come forward to quash the said calender case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was doing wood works business under the name and style of M/s Sri Balaji
Wood Works from the year 2003 onwards. Suddenly, the defacto
complainant refused to receive the rents, hence the petitioner filed RCOP
No.10 of 2008 under Section 8(5) of Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent
Control Act] before the learned District Munsif No.1, Hosur and the same is
pending. At that time, the defacto complainant lodged the present
complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner had attacked him
and the defacto complainant was grievously hurt.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondent failed to see the statements as well as the documents
produced by the defacto complainant, which does not disclose any prima
facie criminal ingredients to proceed with the trial against petitioner herein.
The Court below failed to note that the dispute between the parties
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
constitute a civil wrong, the court would not permit the person to be
harassed in criminal proceedings and reliance is placed upon the
Judgment of this Court in N.R.Ramakoti and Another Vs. State & Others
reported in 2011 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 737 (Mad) and without considering the
said factum, the court below took cognizance for the false complaint.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the
prosecution proceeds with the case, this petitioner would be forced to face
an unfair trial and the same is against the essence of criminal
jurisprudence and violative of the constitutional safeguards of fair trial and
undue prejudice will be caused to this petitioner, if the trial court proceeds
with the trial. Further, the investigating officer failed to consider that a civil
dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal offence to wreak
vengeance against the petitioner and the same does not meet the strict
proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. Hence prayed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.206 of 2009 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Hosur and quash the same.
7. The learned Government Advocate submitted that only after
thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed and properties have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
been recovered from the scene of occurrence and that there has been
previous enmity between the parties and several disputes are pending and
prayed that all these disputed facts can be decided only by way of trial and
prayed that the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C.,
8. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that
there are numerous complaints along with photos were filed by the
petitioner against the defacto complainant, which would prove that the
defacto complainant have demolished all the materials owned by the
petitioner and sold the same. All these things were not taken into
consideration by police officials and no FIR has been registered and the
complaints were closed as 'mistake of fact' and stated that all the police
officials are relative to the defacto complainant and prayed that the matter
should be quashed. Further the petitioner is not having any power and the
defacto complainant had got man and muscle power, who can go to any
extent and he further submitted that entire materials have been taken away
and sold, which was been investigated by the police and closed as mistake
of fact and this complaint is only a false complaint and prayed to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
11. A perusal of the charge sheet would show that the petitioner had
attacked the defacto complainant, viz., Anjappa with iron rod on the right
side of the forehead, thereby caused simple injuries. Further, on hearing
the sound of the defacto complainant, when one sekar, 2nd son of the
defacto complainant rushed to the scene, the petitioner attacked him with
iron sickle on the wrist of the left hand and on the small finger of the left
hand, thereby caused simple injuries to him and hence the petitioner was
charged with offence under Section 324 IPC. That apart, the petitioner had
threatened the defacto complainant and his son with dire consequences,
stating that he would kill the defacto complainant and his son, thereby he
was charged under Section 506(ii) of IPC.
12. Further, one Nagaraj, who is arrayed as A.2 had prevented the
said Sekar and pulled his right hand and on account of the same, the said
Sekar suffered with dislocation of the shoulder, thereby caused grievous
injuries, therefore, Sections 341, 325 of IPC were charged against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
13. The statements have been obtained under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
from as many as ten witnesses and from the said statements, it is seen
that there was a quarrel between two persons regarding the tenancy and
accordingly, there were some disputes between the parties concerned and
the same has been corroborated with all the witnesses and the Doctor, who
had treated the defacto complainant has stated that the defacto
complainant, Anjappa and his son, namely, Sekar were given treatment
and opined that injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are simple in
nature and the injuries sustained by the son of the defacto complainant,
viz., Sekar are grievous in nature. That apart, the police has recovered
one rod, which is one foot length and 1 inch width and one sickle, ¾ feet
length from the seen of occurrence.
14. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
A.V.Mohan Rao and Another Vs. M.Kishan Rao and Another reported
in (2002) 6 SCC 174 held that powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, that too in rarest of rare
cases and it was held that if prima facie offence is made out, complaint
cannot be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
15. In the present case on hand, the statements, charge sheet as
well as the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a
serious offence justifying the registration of a case. Further, investigation is
completed, charge sheet has been filed and the same is taken on file and
this case does not fall under any one of the categories of cases formulated
for the exercise of extradinary or inherent powers of this Court to quash the
FIR itself. That apart, as far as the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the defacto complainant had demolished the materials /
properties [which is evident from the statement recorded by various
persons under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,in Crime No.6 of 2013] are concerned,
all the said aspects cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage and it is
open to the petitioner to raise all these aspects before the trial court.
In view of the above, the present Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.09.2021
Index : Yes/No; Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Hosur
2. State represented by
Inspector of police,
Hosur Town Police Station,
Hosur
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
Crl.O.P.No.20298 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
