B.Nigajdeen vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 3314 Mad

                                                           1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


                                                 Dated: 28/03/2023
                                                          CORAM


                                       The Hon'ble   Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN


                                             Crl.OP(MD)No.4947 of 2023
                                                        and
                                        Crl.MP(MD)No.4363 and 4364 of 2023

                     1.B.Nigajdeen
                     2.Thameem Ansari
                     3.Thanseer Ali                        : Petitioners/A1 to A3

                                                          Vs.

                     1.The State rep. by
                       The Sub Inspector of Police,
                       South Gate Police Station,
                       Madurai City.
                       (Crime No.406 of 2021)     : R1/Complainant

                     2.N.Imthias Babu                      : R2/De-facto Complainant


                                   PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition has been
                     filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
                     to call for the records pertaining to CC No.1185 of 2022
                     on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and
                     quash the same and pass any other orders.


                                    For Petitioner              : Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah

                                     For 1st Respondent      : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                 2

                                                            O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed

seeking quashment of CC No.1185 of 2022 on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

2.The facts in brief:-

The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint

stating that he is owning property in Moideen Andavar 2nd

Street, South Perumal Mastri Street, Madurai and residing

in that property. The neighbours namely the accused

persons herein are having dispute with the de-facto

complainant over the above said property. So enquiry was

pending before the Therkuvasal Jamath. On 03/10/2022,

the de-facto complainant along with his family members

went to a marriage. At that time, the accused persons

trespassed into the kitchen portion of the property and

demolished a portion. It was informed to him and he

returned to the place at 07.40 pm and found that the

property was demolished. The kitchen portion of the

property was demolished and lock was also put in the

door. Later, the above said lock was removed by the

accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3.On the basis of the basis of the above said

occurrence, a case in Crime No.406 of 2021 was registered

for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 427

and 506(i) IPC and after completing the investigation,

final report was filed and it was taken cognizance by the

trial court in CC No.1185 of 2022.

4.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has

been filed on the ground that none of allegations

mentioned in the final report attract any of the

ingredients of the offences under section 294(b), 427 and

506(ii) IPC; Apart from that, it is also stated that

there is no prima facie materials collected during the

course of investigation.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would rely upon various judgments such as

in Muthiah Posumpon and three others Vs. State rep.

through the Inspector of Police, C-4, Thilagar Thidal

Police Station (L & O), Madurai City, Madurai

(Crl.OP(MD)No.13259 of 2017, dated 22/02/2021); in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

T.Lakshmi Vs. N.Ramesh and two others (Crl.RC No.176 of

2021, dated 31/03/2021) to bring home the point that the

ingredients of the offences under sections 294(b) and

506(ii) IPC are not attracted. We need not go into the

above said aspect, since the offence under section 427

IPC is mentioned not only in the complaint, but also in

the final report.

7.I have gone through the entire CD file. Perusal

of the CD file shows that a portion of the property has

been demolished, but the worth of the above said

demolished portion has not mentioned in the final report.

When a prima facie material is available to show that a

portion of the property was demolished, the trial must

take in its logical conclusion.

8.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the offences under sections 294(b) and 506(i)IPC

attract can be considered by the trial court on its own

merit at the time of disposal. When demolition of a

property of the house is alleged, it must be taken in its

logical conclusion. I find absolutely no reason to quash

the proceedings. The petitioner got clear abuse of

process of the court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.In the result, this criminal original petition

is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

28/03/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

er

To,

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.ILANGOVAN, J

er

Crl.OP(MD)No.4947 of 2023

28/03/2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis