Madras High Court
Rajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :19.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4876 of 2021
1. Rajan
2. Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station,
Theni District
2. Vijaya ..Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
First Information Report in Crime No.153 of 2021 dated 18.3.2021 on the
file of the Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Theni
District and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Senguttuarasan
For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.A.Ganesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
First Information Report in Crime No.153 of 2021 dated 18.3.2021 on
the file of the Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station,
Theni District.
2. According to the petitioners based on the complaint given by
the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime
No.153 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b),323, 342 and
506(i) of IPC @ 341,294(b),323,342, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of
TNPHW Act. According to the defacto complainant civil suit in O.S. No.
322 of 1997 was filed before the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakkanur
and decreed in favour of the defacto complainant. Against the said
judgment and decree appeal was filed in A.S.No.4 of 1996 before the
District Court, Theni and the same was dismissed. Thereafter second
appeal in S.A.(MD) No.628 of 2007 was filed and the same was also
dismissed. In the meantime the defacto complainant went to the disputed
property for taking possession in her favour. The first petitioner
prevented the same and also stated that he has filed a civil suit in O.S.
No.200 of 2012 and the same is pending before the District Munsif Court,
Bodinayakannur. The defacto complainant is struggling long time and
she also has been in possession in one part of the property and the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
petitioner trespassed into another part of the property. The same was
complained by the defacto complainant before the first respondent. In
and the same was enquired by the first respondent. In the meantime the
suit filed by the first petitioner was dismissed on 12.03.2021. The defacto
complainant along with her daughter and her relative Navaneethan and
car driver and one George went to the property for recovering the same,
at that the first petitioner and others prevented them and abused the
defacto complainant by using filthy language and also threatened them
and pulled the daughter of the defacto complainant and car driver inside
the room and locked the same and the same was informed to Theni
District Control room No.100 and the first respondent police recovered
the above said persons and thereby the present case has been registered.
Infact these petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
First Information Report. The first petitioner is having a Trust and
running the hostel for poor children. He was the lessee of the property
from one Pavunraj who is the brother of the defacto complainant and the
same was extended periodically. Inorder of wreck vengeance for the civil
dispute this First Information Report has been registered and the same is
clear abuse of process of Court.
3. The second respondent filed counter and stated that the
second respondent is the owner of the property and she got the property
through Will. One portion of the property was occupied by her brother
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
illegally and she has also filed a suit and the same was decreed in her
favour. Thereafter her brother filed appeal and he same was also
dismissed. She has filed Execution Petition to take possession of the
property and at that time one Rajan/A1 filed suit in O.S.No.200 of 2012
and the same was also dismissed. After getting decree the trespasser
did not vacate the premises and hence she has asked to vacate the place
at that time one Rajan/A1 pushed her down and hit her and also uttered
filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences and also
illegally confined the defacto complainant and her daughter and then she
called the emergency number 100 and they came and rescued them. The
defacto complainant had taken treatment in the Government hospital,
Bodi, thereby she gave a complaint before the respondent police. Since
the petitioners are influential persons the police refused to register the
First Information Report, thereby the Deputy Superintendent of Police
has taken action as against the trespasser. Inorder to grab the property
the accused persons committed some illegal activities and for the above
said act complaint was lodged, hence the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the first petitioner is the lessee and he legally got
possession of the property from the owner of the property and as per the
lease he has been enjoying the property. Therefore the first petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
filed a suit in O.S. No.200 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court,
Bodinayakanur and the same was dismissed. However on the date of
occurrence the second respondent along with others entered into
premises of the petitioners and they only assaulted the petitioners and
committed the offence and for that the petitioners have given complaint
but the police have not taken any action. Per contra based on the
complaint given by the second respondent with false allegations the
present First Information Report has been registered. Due to civil
dispute between the parties inorder to give criminal colour to the civil
dispute this false complaint with allegations has been lodged as against
the petitioner and another lady aged about 70 years. Even according to
the First Information Report no offences are made out as against these
petitioners and thereby the First Information Report is liable to be
quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
would contend that these petitioners illegally occupied the property of
the second respondent and the property originally belongs to the second
respondent and she got the property through Will. Already there was a
dispute between the second respondent and her brother in respect of the
property and civil suit was filed and the same was decreed in her favour
and his brother filed A.S. No. 4 of 1996 before the District Court, Theni
and the same was also dismissed and the second respondent is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
absolute owner of the property. These petitioners alleged to be lessee
from her brother also filed a suit and the same was also dismissed.
Thereafter when the second respondent went to the disputed house and
asked to vacate the petitioner they assaulted and abused using obusive
words and wrongfully restrained thereby he gave a complaint and the
First Information Report was registered and now the case was
investigated and also filed final report. As per the final report, there are
prima facie materials available as against these petitioners and hence
the petitioners have to face the trial and at this stage the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
first respondent would contend that already investigation was completed
and charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakanur and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.289 of 2023 and
thereby the petitioners have to face the trial and at this stage the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8. It is an admitted fact that there is a dispute pending between
the parties with regard to vacating the premises. The second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
also admitted that she filed Execution Petition for taking delivery and the
same is also pending. At this stage the second respondent went to the
place of occurrence at that time the said occurrence said to have taken
place, when the case is pending before the civil Court for taking
delivery. As per the First Information Report and final report these
petitioners assaulted the second respondent and others when they asked
to vacate the premises.
9. On careful perusal of the First Information Report and the
records it is revealed that while the execution proceedings are pending
before the civil Court for taking delivery of property the second
respondent and others went to the house of the petitioners and asked to
vacate the property and thereby the occurrence was happened. The
second respondent once filed an execution petition for taking delivery
they have to wait till the order passed by the trial Court and the
petitioners have to be evicted in due process of law but the second
respondent and others without waiting for the result went to the place of
occurrence and asked to vacate the premises. These facts show that the
second respondent and others attempted to evict the petitioners without
due process of law. The petitioners have a right to protect their
possession when the proceedings are pending before the Cout.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
10. It is admitted by both side counsels that after the
registration of the case the petitioners have vacated the premises and
now the petitioners are not in possession of the property. Recording the
said submission and considering that inorder to protect their possession
these petitioners restrained the second respondent and others who tried
to vacate the petitioners during pending civil proceedings, hence by
invoking Section 95 of IPC this Court can quash the proceedings since
the acts are trivial in nature.
11. The offences under Section 341 and 342 of IPC would not
attract since the second respondent has to take possession through civil
Court according to law and the allegations are also vague and not
specific. Further the second respondent herself admitted that so far
delivery was not given from the Court. Further as per the contention of
the petitioner already premises has been vacated during pendency of this
petition.. So far as offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC are
concerned on perusal of the contents of the First Information Report it is
revealed that due to civil dispute between the parties criminal colour has
been given to the civil case and the allegations are general and omnibus.
So far as section 323 of IPC is concerned even according to the final
report the defacto complainant has not went to the hospital for taking
treatment and the allegations against the petitioners are general and
omnibus and are not specific, thereby the pending First Information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
Report and the C.C.No.289 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Bodinayakanur are liable to be quashed
12. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and
the First Information Report and the Charge sheet in C.C.No.289 of
2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur are
hereby quashed in their entirety. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
19.09.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur
2. The Inspector of Police
Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station,
Theni 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.9545 of 2021
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9545 of 2021
19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
