Madras High Court
S.M.Omar vs Shaik Dawood Maraicair on 11 January, 2022
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.6217 & 6218 of 2018
1.S.M.Omar
2.Ayisha Ummal
3.Mohammed [email protected]
4.G.Anbalagan
5.Padmini . . . Petitioners
Versus
Shaik Dawood Maraicair . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records and to quash the criminal proceedings in so far as the petitioners
are concerned in C.C.No.66 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate II, Karaikal.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Palani
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is heard through Video-Conferencing, on
account of COVID-19 pandemic situation.
Page No:1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in C.C.No.66 of 2018, filed against the accused for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 447, 449, 454, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section
149 IPC, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
first petitioner was 93 years old at the time of filing the criminal original petition
and he is no more now. The statement of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is recorded.
4. The crux of the allegation is that the de facto complainant on his return
from chennai, on 19.03.2017, he found that there was a wall put up restricting
entry from back door and came to know that the first accused with the help of
others has put up the said wall. When the de facto complainant went to the first
accused and questioned him, all the accused had threatened him and also made
a threat, thereby he filed a private complaint on the ground that police has not
taken any action against his complaint.
Page No:2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended
that there was a Civil Suit pending between two families in O.S. No.29/1984 on
the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikal, which was decreed in
favour of the present petitioners. As against which an Appeal Suit was filed by
the de facto complainan in A.S.No.03 of 2004 on the file of learned Additional
District Judge, Pondicherry, which was partly allowed and aggrieved over the
same, a Second Appeal in S.A. No.679 of 2018 was filed and the same is
pending before this Court. The petitioners have also filed an execution petition
in E.P.No.14 of 2017, for the disobedience of the decree and judgment. Hence,
only in order to prevent the process, this complaint has been filed implicating all
the members. The First Information Report filed has also been closed by the
police as a mistake of fact and with the general allegations, this private
complaint has been taken on file and hence prayed for quashment.
6. Despite notice served on the respondent, no one has entered
appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and perused the entire materials available on
record.
Page No:3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
7. The allegations in the private complaint indicate that only the de facto
compliant entered the house of the petitioners and questioned. At that time,
some abusive words were spoken by the petitioners. The alleged occurrence is
said to have been taken place inside the house of the present petitioners and the
fact that the Civil Suits are pending between the parties are not disputed and
established on record. It is also to be noted that, in the private complaint, it is
stated that the de facto complaint came to the place of occurrence on
18.03.2017, and immediately he questioned the the first accused, other accused
made a threat. Whereas, in the similar allegations given to the police, it is stated
as if the occurrence took place on 19.03.2017, when he came from chennai. The
two different stories have been projected by the de facto complainant, one
before the police and one in the private complaint.
8. Having regard to the above and the nature of Civil disputes pending
between the parties, this Court is of the view that the allegations in the First
Information Report is only to target against the family members and the entire
occurrence is said to have been taken place in petitioners' house and not even in
the accused place. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the
First Information Report is a motivated one and filed to thwart the execution
Page No:4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
petition. Hence continuation of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.66 of 2018
is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
II, Karaikal, are quashed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
11.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
psa/asr
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate II,
Karaikal.
Page No:5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
psa/asr
Crl. O.P. No.11801 of 2018
11.01.2022
Page No:6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
