Madras High Court
Mr.Duraichamy vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 July, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06/07/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.14587 of 2018 and 16066 of 2019
(1)Crl.OP(MD)No.14587 of 2018:-
Mr.Duraichamy : Petitioner/Sole accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppachetti Police Station,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
(Crime No.46 of 2016)
2.Mr.N.Rajendran : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.10 of
2017 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For 1st Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2)Crl.OP(MD)No.16066 of 2019:-
1,Rajendran
2.Ashok Kumar
3.Devi : Petitioners/A1 to A3
Vs.
1.The State rep. Through
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppachetti Police Station,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
(Crime No.47 of 2016)
2.Duraisamy : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.99 of
2017 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
For 1st Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
COMMON ORDER
These criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC Nos.10 of 2019 and 99 of 2017
on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Manamadurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 22/02/2016 at about 6.00 pm, when the witnesses
Rajendran and Ashok Kumar were clearing the adjacent site
for parking their cars, the accused persons came there and
picked up quarrel, abused in filthy language and also
criminally intimidated. Based on the complaint given by the
de-facto complainant, formalities of investigation was
conducted and final report was filed making allegation
against the petitioner namely Duraisamy as stated above.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, Crl.OP(MD)No.14587 of
2018 is filed by the sole accused in this crime namely
Duraichamy, wherein the de-facto complainant Rajendran is
shown as 2nd respondent.
4.Similarly on the basis of the complaint given by
this petitioner namely Duraichamy, a case in Crime No.47 of
2016 was registered. After completing the formalities of
the investigation, final report was filed alleging that on
22/02/20216 at about 6.00 pm, when the de-facto complainant
namely Duraichamy was returning to his house, the accused
Rajendran caused assault with Aruval. But he escaped from
that. A2 came to the place of occurrence with crow-bar and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
criminally intimidated and tried to assault him with crow-
bar. He escaped from that attempt also. On the basis of the
above said complaint, the case was registered in crime No.
47 of 2019. After completing the formalities of
investigation, final report has been filed in CC No.99 of
2017.
5.Seeking quashment of the same, A1 to A3 namely
Rajendran, Ashok Kumar and Devi have filed Crl.OP(MD)No.
16066 of 2019.
6.Heard both sides.
7.It is a case and counter. Both were heard together
and finding that, it is a dispute between the relatives. On
perusal of the statement of the witnesses as well as the
FIRs and the connected documents, this court is not in a
position to know the correct relationship between the
parties. But from the documents, it is seen that it is a
dispute between the close relatives over the sharing of the
properties. Because, we find reference in the final report
to the effect that Duraichamy alleged to have demanded
share in the property and tried to prevent Rajendran and
others from cleaning the property. That was objected by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rajendran and others stating that already the properties
were divided and no further share can be allowed to him.
Finding that the dispute between the close relatives, the
matter was referred to the mediation for amicable
settlement. But it could not be settled, because of
difference of opinion between the parties. The matter was
referred back to the court and it was heard on merits.
8.From the reading of the FIR in both the matters and
final reports, it is seen that on the particular date I.e.,
22/02/2016, trouble has arisen between two groups, over
which the above said case and counter case has been
registered. Both were alleged with the other party,
criminal intimidation and abused in filthy language and
also try to assault them. So this is the similarity
between the rival complainants.
9.But in the grounds of petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.14587
of 2018, it has been stated by Duraichamy that the property
under dispute only belong to Duraichamy, who is the
petitioner's grand father and he died in 1975 and he had
three sons namely Murugesan, Rajeshwaran and Nagalingam.
Duraichamy is the son of the above said Murugesan,
Rajeswharan is the son of above said Nagalingam. So the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property under dispute is their ancestral property, in
which Duraichamy as well as Rajendran got equal share. But
against which, Rajendran vagaiyara tried to get the entire
property. So from this, it is seen that it is a dispute
between the close relatives with regard to the property.
10.When there is a mutual allegation against each
others and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the considered view that continuation of both the
proceedings may not be fair in the interest of parties.
Both parties have to work out their remedy through
appropriate legal process by filing proper civil suit.
Without resorting such a civilised way of resolving the
dispute, it appears that both of them entered into petty
quarrel and both of them exchanged abusive words and both
of them also tried to criminally intimidate others. Who are
the aggressors in this issue was not investigated by the
Investigating Officer. He has simply filed the final
reports charge sheeting both party. Both the parties charge
sheeted in separate final reports which is not permissible
under law. The Investigating Officer ought to have find out
the aggressors and proceed against them. If at all he is
not in a position to find out the aggressors, then he ought
to have face the trial before the jurisdictional court for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
making a decision. But here, charge sheet of both the
parties, filed separately, as mentioned earlier, is not
permissible.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the parties
relied upon a judgment of this court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lan and others Vs. State
of U.P and another 1990(Supp) SCC 145 and in the case of
Chandrasekar and others Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Ambagaruthur Out-Post Police Station, Thirunallur, Karaikal
District, Puducherry State (Crl.OP No.26741 of 2018, dated
06/03/2019), wherein a similar problem has been discussed.
This court, by following the PSO 588(A) as well as by
relying upon, by considering the earlier judgments of this
court, has concluded that the judgment rendered in the case
of Thota Ramakrishnayya Vs. State (1954 MWN Cr. 9) has
pointed that the Investigating Officer must find out that
who is the aggressors and if they are not in a position to
find out the same, they must get the opinion of the Public
Prosecutor. But here, that sort of procedure has not been
adopted by the Investigating Officer as mentioned earlier.
Because of the non-observation of the proper procedure as
well as the factual aspects, it is seen that it is an
exaggerated version by both sides. A petty and civil issue
has been given a criminal magnitude.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Additional typed set of papers has been filed by
the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.14587 of 2018, enclosing the
copy of the FIRs, which have been registered in respect of
the dispute between the parties, wherein, we find that more
than eight cases have been registered between the parties.
This shows the attitude and behaviour of the parties. So,
in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of
considered view that both the proceedings require to be
quashed.
13.In the result, both the criminal original petitions
are allowed. The impugned CC Nos.10 and 99 of 2017 on the
file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Manamadurai are hereby quashed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.07.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.14587 of 2018 and 16066 of 2019
06/07/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
