Madras High Court
Thiruneelakandan vs State Represented By on 12 October, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 12/10/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.17368 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.11752 and 11754 of 2022
1.Thiruneelakandan
2.Marimuthu
3.Amutha @ Angaiyarkanni
4.Palani @ Ramaiya
5.Arthi @ Annalakshmi : Petitioners/A1 to A5
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Aranthangi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.180 of 2021) : R1/Complainant
2.Geetha : R2/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in CC No.
55 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Aranthangi and to quash the same in so far as the
petitioners are concerned and pass such further or other
orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanith
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed
seeking quashment of the case in CC No.55 of 2022 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating
that the marriage between herself and her husband namely
Puliprabakaran took place, on 01/09/2008 at her own
expenses as per the customary rites. Knowing that the de-
facto complainant is coming from a wealth family, her
brother-in-law namely Thiruneelakandan and father-in-law
namely Marimuthu and sister-in-law namely Amutha and her
husband namely Puliprabakaran advised her to start a
business. They also stated out of the above said jewelry.
Property to be purchased in the name of her husband.
Believing their words, she arranged a site. A sale
agreement was entered between her father and the vendor,
on 07/01/2009. Advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also
paid. At that time, her husband was working in IT
company. For the purpose starting the business, he
resigned the job and came to Aranthangi. Balance amount
of Rs.6,35,000/- was arranged by selling her sreedhana
articles. But pressure was made to execute the sale deed
in name of brother-in-law or in the name of father-in-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
law. That was not accepted by her. So, they started
making trouble. Due to continuous pressure, she consented
property to be purchased in the name of her brother-in-
law. But the original documents are retained by her. In
the above said property, they started a drinking water
plant at their own costs. But for the purpose of getting
service connection, a nominal partnership deed was
executed. The accused conspired to remove her husband
from the above said business. Police protection petition
filed by Thiruneelakandan was dismissed with costs. He
was also prevented from entering into the business
premises. On 22/05/2016, the accused persons along with
their henchmen numbering about 50, trespassed into the
business premises, tried to assault, criminally
intimidated and locked in a room. Over which, a complaint
was given, for which CSR No.284 of 2016 was also
registered. Due to non renewal of the business, business
was stopped. But the machineries and other articles found
missing. On enquiry, it reveals that the said
Thiruneelakandan along with henchmen, stolen away the
properties. Again complaint was given in CSR No.360 of
2016. Thiruneelakandan admitted that he has stolen away
the said articles worth about Rs.45,00,000/- and sold in
the old iron shop. Thiruneelakandan is facing the
criminal charges. On the basis of the above said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
occurrence, a case in Crime No.55 of 2022 was registered
for the offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 342,
506(ii), 379, 420, 498(A) IPC and section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022. After
completing the investigation, final report was filed and
it was taken cognizance in CC No.55 of 2022 by the
Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, A1 to A5 are before
this court by way of filing this petition.
4.Finding that it is an issue between the close
relatives, the matter was referred to the Mediation and
Conciliation attached to this Bench, but no settlement
could be arrived. It was heard on various dates. The de-
facto complainant herself appeared as party in person and
argued the matter.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that it is a partnership venture; The
dispute between the partners have been given criminal
colour; The offences mentioned in the final report, prima
facie are not attracted; The complaint has been given by
suppressing the pendency of the suit in O.S No.91 of 2016
on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
above said issue; There is a long delay in preferring the
complaint; According to the de-facto complainant, the
offence said to have been committed on 02/03/2012,
another offence said to have been committed on 22/05/2016
followed by the alleged theft of articles on 27/09/2019;
Pending investigation, A10-Stalin died; After a long
delay, the present complaint has been given.
6.For which, the second respondent would submit that
each and every time, she gave a complaint, but no proper
action was taken. Only CSRs were issued. Finally, she
approached the Central Women Commission. Based upon the
recommendation made by the Women Commission only, the
present complaint has been registered. So according to
her, the delay may not affect the prosecution.
7.No doubt that it is an issue between the close
relatives. The case of the de-facto complainant is that
only out of her own sources, the property was purchased
in the name of A1 namely Thiruneelakandan; But however,
the business was conducted only by her and her husband.
The partnership deed is only a nominal document, which
will not give any right to A1 in anyway.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
8.No doubt that as mentioned above by the de-facto
complainant whether the said partnership deed is a
nominal one, cannot be matter for consideration by this
court. But prima facie, it is seen that continuous
trouble exists between the parties, over the purchase of
the property, establishment of the water plant, etc.
Continuous complaints have also been given. So, these are
the factual circumstances. Even though, the property is
standing in the name of A1, the fact remains that
originally, sale agreement was entered between the father
of the second respondent and the vendor. By what way, the
above said sources were gathered or collected also cannot
be matter for consideration by this court. But the fact
remains that the original document in respect of the said
property and the original sale agreement are standing in
the name of the de-facto complainant's father are
available in the hands of the de-fcto complainant.
9.In the light of the above said factual situation,
let us go to the other aspects raised by the petitioners.
10.In the grounds, it has been stated that the
offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 342, 506(ii),
379, 420, 498(A) IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
attracted to the factual circumstances of the case.
According to him, there is no allegation to the effect
that with an intention to commit the offence of mischief
and trespass, the accused persons trespassed into the
property, when the property is standing in the name of
the first petitioner. According to the petitioners,
question of trespass will not arise.
11.He is also referring to the document, dated
05/03/2009. I have already discussed the above said
document in the earlier portion of the order.
12.As stated above, when the agreement is standing
in the name of the father of the second respondent,
naturally presumption arises that the property was
intended to be purchased for the benefit of the second
respondent. As mentioned above, whether the document is
a nominal document or not cannot be a mater for
consideration by this court sitting under section 482
Cr.P.C jurisdiction. These are the factual aspects.
Depending upon the finding of the ownership only, whether
the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 379
are attracted can be found out. The same answer lies to
section 420 IPC also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
13.Regarding section 294(b) IPC, it has been stated
by the petitioners that even as per the allegations made
in the complaint and in the final report, specific words
alleged to have been uttered by the members of the
unlawful assembly is not mentioned, so also the persons,
who made the above said insult. But in the final report,
it has been stated that all the accused persons abused
her in filthy language.
14.Similarly, according to the petitioners, for the
offence under section 506(ii) IPC also, the ingredients
are not mentioned in the final report. The specific
averment is that all the accused persons armed with
weapons, criminally intimidated not to enter into the
company. On seeing the unruly mob, the second respondent
alleged to have locked in a room. So this basis averment
with regard to the offences under sections 342 and
506(ii) IPC are not also mentioned.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would rely upon the judgment of this court reported in
the case of Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited,
Chennai Vs. Murli Khemchand [2014(1)CTC 174] for the
purpose of argument that since the property belongs to
the first petitioner, the question of theft and trespass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
may not be attracted. But that was decided on its own
facts and circumstances. But here, we are dealing with
entirely different issue.
16.No doubt that some of the penal provisions viz.,
section 498(A) IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 are not
attracted to the ground situation. It is a matter for
consideration by the trial court at the time of framing
appropriate charges. Similarly, the involvement of the
other accused persons can also be a matter for
consideration at the time of trial. So, I find no reason
to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. At the
time of framing the charges, the petitioners are at
liberty to raise their grounds. So, when the factual
issues are involved, as mentioned above, the contention
on the part of the petitioners that the criminal
complaint and the final report are nothing, but mala fide
exercise of the right will not lie. So, I find no reason
to allow this petition. But considering the relationship
between the parties and many of the accused are in-laws
of the second respondent herein, their personal
appearance is dispensed with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
17.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. But however, considering the relationship
between the parties and many of the accused are in-laws
of the second respondent herein, their personal
appearance is dispensed with on condition that the
petitioners shall appear before the concerned trial court
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and file an undertaking affidavit, by
fixing their recent passport size photograph to the
effect that they will appear before the trial court as
when required and must ensure their proper representation
through Advocate. Accordingly, Crl.MP(MD)No.1754 of 2022
is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.MP(MD)No.11752 of
2022 is closed.
12/10/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Aranthangi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Aranthangi Police Station,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.17368 of 2022
12/10/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
