Madras High Court
K.Govindaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2486 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1840 & 1841 of 2022
1. K.Govindaraj
2. Anitha ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 &2
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Station,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Malaichamy ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the Final Report in C.C. No. 310 of 2019 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and quash the same as
arbitrary and illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.D.Senthil for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C. No. 310 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Paramakudi.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the second
respondent were living in a joint family. The first petitioner was working in
abroad and sent his money to the second respondent, who is elder brother of the
first petitioner. The second respondent purchased the property comprised in
Survey No. 13/2A1 to an extent of 2558 ½ Sq.ft on 02.07.2009 through the
money sent by the first petitioner. The second respondent being elder brother
of the family, constructed a house in the said plot and living there. The first
petitioner returned back to India got married and both the families are living
together. While being so, the second respondent entered into an unregistered
agreement with regard to the said property and agreed that the ground floor of
the house was allotted to the first petitioner and the first floor was allotted to
the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent let out his first floor
for lease to one Balamurugan and shifted his family. Thereafter, the second
respondent also decided to sell the portion of the said house and approached the
first petitioner. However, taking advantage of the property in his name, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
second respondent fraudulently executed a gift settlement on 05.04.2016 in
respect of the said property in favour of his wife, namely, Malarkodi.
Thereafter, the second respondent threatened the petitioners and attempted to
evict them in force from the year 2016. In this regard, the first petitioner filed
an injunction suit in O.S.No.60 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Paramakudi as against the second respondent. In fact, the first petitioner
also preferred a complaint and he was also issued with C.S.R.No.251 of 2016.
While pending the said suit, the second respondent sold the property in favour
of one Prema, wife of Rengarajan on 20.10.2016. Thereafter, the second
respondent tried to evict the first petitioner with the police and registered the
present case in Crime No.533 of 2016 for the offences under Section 341,
294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.
3. In fact the wife of the second respondent filed a petition before this
Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16442 of 2017 to provide adequate police protection
in which this Court observed and dismissed the petition which reads as
follows:-
“5. The question whether the petitioner is the owner
of the property or not has not been resolved by any Court.
When the third respondent appeared before this Court on
the basis of pendency of the Suit filed by him, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
closed the petition with certain observations as granting of
prayer by this Court is likely to be interpreted as though
this Court has recognized the title, right and interest of the
petitioner herein. Further, this Court is not competent to
decide the title or right. In that view of the matter, the
petition filed by the third respondent was closed. However,
the same cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner in the
present petition filed for police protection consequent to
the order passed by this Court.
6. This Court normally can not entertain petition for
police protection when there is a dispute with regard to
right title and enjoyment of the property, it is only the civil
Court which is competent to decide the right title and
enjoyment of the property as between the parties. Since
the dispute with regard to title has not been finally
resolved, the prayer in this petition cannot be considered.
Hence the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”
4. Therefore, it is clear that there is a civil dispute pending between the
first petitioner and the second respondent only to evict the petitioners from the
subject property. The present complaint is a false complaint registered against
the first petitioner. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law and entire
proceedings cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
5. Therefore, there is absolutely no material to attract the offence under
Sections 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. as against the petitioners. In this regard, it is
relevant to extract the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of
2014 (Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of Police), which reads as
follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under
Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto
complainant that it does not contain any obscene words,
which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire
allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from
the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened
the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he
dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are
trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under
Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by
words. As pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the threat should be a real one and not just a
mere word when the petition uttering does not exactly mean
what he says and also when the person to whom threat is
launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the
offences under Sections 294(B) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not
made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire
criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire
proceedings.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
6. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained as
against the petitioners and it is liable to be quashed. This Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
29.03.2022
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 Court,
Paramakudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Station,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2486 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2486 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1840 & 1841 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
