Madras High Court
Mariyappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.6410 and 6411 of 2019
1.Mariyappan
2.Karuppasamy
3.Poosamani
4.Mariappan : Petitioners/A1 to A4
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Surandai Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.173 of 2016) : R1/Complainant
2.Saravanan : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
STC No.319 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam and quash the same
For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For 2nd respondent : No appearance
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the STC No.319 of 2019 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
One Chandra Mohan is the friend of the de-facto
complainant. He is owning property on the eastern side of
Kulayaneri Village. Catchment area exists in the property
of the above said Chandra Mohan. Dispute existed between
the villagers and the above said Chandra Mohan. On
16/08/2016, the villagers blocked the road, which led to
Chandra Mohan's property by putting gravel sand. On
17/08/2016 at about 9.00 am, the de-facto complainant
questioned about the blocking of the road by the accused
persons. At that time, A1 Mariyappan abused him in filthy
language and A2 also abused him in filthy language. They
also criminally intimidated with dire consequences. Based
upon the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a
case in Crime No.173 of 2016 was registered for the
offences under sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. After
completing the formalities of investigation, final report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
was filed and it has taken cognizance by the Judicial
Magistrate, Alangulam, in STC No.319 of 2019.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioners.
4.Heard both sides.
5.As mentioned in the preamble portion, it is seen
that there was a pathway dispute between one Chandra Mohan
and the accused persons and the villagers. The allegation
against the petitioners is that on 16/10/2016, they blocked
the road to the above said Chandra Mohan's property. When
that was objected by the de-facto complainant, the
occurrence said to have been taken place. How the de-facto
complainant interested in the affairs of the above said
Chandra Mohan is not clear on record. In the statement, he
has stated the Chandra Mohan is his Master.
6.It is the case of the petitioners that the trouble
arose between the above said Chandra Mohan and the
villagers, when he purchased the property, which was
situated on the western portion of Oorani in Usilankulam
tank. The vendor of the above said Chandra Mohan was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
party to the suit in O.S No.107 of 1947, which was filed by
the villagers for restraining the above said vendor namely
Velayutha Nadar and for mandatory injunction, since he
damaged a portion of the tank bund. That suit was decreed
and appeal filed against that suit was dismissed. By
purchasing the property from the above said Velayutha
Nadar, they made trouble to the villages by blocking. Even
though steps have been taken by the villagers to remove the
block, no action was taken. Now some of the youngsters
damaged. This things cannot be taken at this stage. These
facts require proper evidence. Even though the judgments
passed in O.S No.107 of 1949 and the Appeal Suit No.17 of
1059 have been produced, it appears that the complaint has
been made by the villagers against the above said Chandra
Mohan stating that he made encroachment upon the catchment
area of the Usilankulam Tank.
7.As mentioned earlier, it is the allegation that no
action was taken by the Revenue Authorities and they have
pursued their remedy through the civil process.
8.Now leaving all those factual issues aside, let us
go to the allegations made in the FIR and in the final
report. The date of occurrence said to have taken place, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
16/06/2016. But the complaint was given on 05/09/2016. Even
though there is delay in preferring the complaint, that
cannot be a ground for quashment of the FIR.
9.Section 294(b) IPC reads as follows:-
“294(b) sings, recites or utters any
obscene song, ballad or words, in or near
any public place, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or
with fine, or with both.”
10.Section 341 IPC reads as follows:-
“341. Punishment for wrongful
restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any
person shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one month, or with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, or with both.”
11.Section 503 IPC reads as follows:-
“503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever
threatens another with any injury to his
person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom
that person is interested, with intent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
cause alarm to that person, or to cause
that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled
to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.”
12.As mentioned earlier, it appears that there was
continuous dispute between the villagers and the above said
Chandra Mohan with regard to the alleged encroachment
issue. It has been stated that the accused persons abused
him in filthy language and also criminally intimidated. If
really the 2nd respondent entertained fear of life because
of the threat made by the petitioners, he ought to have
given a complaint immediately. But that was not done.
Moreover, it appears that only verbal quarrel occurred
between the parties, which has been given exaggerated
version. Absolutely, there is no ingredient to show that
the de-facto complainant was prevented from proceeding in a
particular way or a particular direction.
13.Similarly the offence under 294(b) IPC is also not
attracted. Since it appears that it is only a wordy quarrel
between them. So also the offence under section 506(i) IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
is not attracted, since there is no allegation to the
effect that because of threat made by the petitioners, he
entertained threat to his life.
14.In the light of the above, this court is of the
considered view that continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioners is an abuse of process of court and
law. So, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is
quashed.
15.In the result, the criminal original petition is
allowed. The impugned STC No.319 of 2019 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam against the petitioners.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07/04/2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Alangulam,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Surandai Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10176 of 2019
07/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
