Madras High Court
S.Subramanian vs The State Represented By on 24 January, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 & 8378 of 2021
and
Cr.M.P.(MD)Nos.4301 & 4302 of 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20607 of 2021:
S.Subramanian ... Petitioner/
Accused No.1
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Emaneswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.73 of 2018) ... Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, herein to recall the Non Bailable
Warrant dated 02.07.2021 issued against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.75 of 2019,
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, on the same day of
filing a petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C without insisting for the
presence of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8378 of 2021:
1.S.Subramanian
2.Govindharaju ... Petitioners/
Accused No.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Emaneswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.73 of 2018) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.A.K.Ganesan,
Village Administrative Officer,
93, Emaneswaram Group,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to P.R.C.No.75 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Paramakudi and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
2. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8378 of 2021 has been filed to quash the proceedings
in P.R.C.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein along with
the other accused entered the property comprised in Survey No.276/1 in
Emaneswaram Group measuring an extent of 2.02.5, cut and removed
Eucalyptus trees without the knowledge of the Government.
3. According to the prosecution, the land in question is a Government
land and that the petitioner had committed trespass. The local Village
Administrative Officer is the defacto complainant in the said case. Based on
his complaint, Crime No.73 of 2018 was registered on the file of
Emaneswaram Police Station and final report came to be filed. The
jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 447
IPC and 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)
Act, 1992. Since the case is triable by the Sessions Court, the case is pending
at the stage of committal as of now. At this stage, this Criminal Original
Petition has been filed to quash the same. Pendency of the proceedings is due to
non appearance of the petitioner. Non-bailable warrant has also been issued
against him. One Criminal Original petition has been filed for quashing the
proceedings and the other Criminal Original Petition has been filed to recall
the warrant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to
the judgment and decree, dated 06.08.2020 made in O.S.No.19 of 2018 on the
file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Paramakudi. The said suit
was filed by the petitioner herein and the relief was sought for declaration and
permanent injunction. I went through the suit schedule and the decree. The suit
was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The suit property is covered under old
Patta No.593, comprised in Survey No.276/1 in Emaneswaram Village.
5. I am more than satisfied that the subject matter on hand is covered by
the decree in the civil suit. I wanted to know from the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) as to whether the judgment and decree passed in
favour of the petitioner has been put to challenge by the Department. The
answer is in the negative. As on date, the civil Court's decree is operating in
favour of the petitioner. When the jurisdictional civil Court has categorically
declared that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, the very
foundation on which, the criminal case is anchored has been totally undermind.
The continuance of the impugned prosecution amounts to an abuse of legal
process. The impugned proceedings are quashed. As a result, the non-bailable
warrant issued against the petitioner is also quashed. Both the Criminal
Original Petitions are allowed. The benefit of this order will enure in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
the non-petitioning second accused also. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
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.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Emaneswaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 and 8378 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20607 & 8378 of 2021
and
Cr.M.P.(MD)Nos.4301 & 4302 of 2021
24.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
