Chellappa vs State Through
2023 Latest Caselaw 13133 Mad

                                                                            Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       Dated : 26.09.2023

                                                             CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                               Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019
                                                           and
                                               Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5636 of 2019


                 1.Chellappa
                 2.Chinnadurai                                                        ...Petitioners

                                                        Vs


                 1.State through,
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Puliyangudi Police Station,
                   Tirunelveli District.
                   (In Crime No.47 of 2019)

                 2.Paunraj                                                      ...Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the entire records connected
                 with the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned
                 Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and quash the same as illegal.
                                  For Petitioners              : Mr.R.Alagumani
                                  For 1st Respondent           : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                  For 2nd Respondent           : Mr.M.Rajarajan

                                                             ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.137 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.

2.According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is working as farmer

and the second petitioner is working as Traffic Operating Points Man B in

Southern Railway. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered and

thereafter, the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed

final report. As per final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken into

cognizance in C.C.No.137 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 353

and 506(i) of IPC and the same is pending.

3.According to prosecution case, on 15.02.2019, at about 05.30 p.m.,

the second respondent inspected the land for the purpose of constructing a

water tank tower project. At that time, the petitioners criminally intimidated

and abused in filthy language and gave life threat and thereby, they lodged a

complaint on 21.02.2019. Based on the complaint, the first respondent

registered FIR in Crime No.47 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b),

353 and 506(i) of IPC.

4.In fact the petitioners belong to Hindu scheduled community and the

petitioners are relatives of the second respondent and belonged to same

village. At the time of alleged occurrence, the first petitioner was working in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

agricultural fields and the second petitioner was working as Traffic Operating

Points in Southern Railway who had participated in Virudhunagar South

Railway Training class for Class IV Staff (Operating) from 11.02.2019 to

16.02.2019. Therefore, no such occurrence was happened. The second

respondent belonged to Christian scheduled case community. Hence, in the

year 2000, there is civil dispute arose between the Hindu and Christian

scheduled case communities people in Ayyapuram village. The second

respondent's Christian scheduled caste community people filed a civil suit

against the petitioners Hindu scheduled case community people to permit the

public usage of Ayyapuram village. The suit in O.S.No.99 of 2000 is pending

before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri,

Tirunelveli District. On 08.07.2004, the suit was dismissed by the learned

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District.

5.The second respondent and his relatives continuously harassed the

petitioners' community people. Therefore on 10.09.2018, the first petitioner on

behalf of the his community people submitted a representation before the

District Collector, Tirunelveli and requested to stop the process by the second

respondent and his community people trying to demolish the Hindu worship

temple. Thereafter, the first petitioner and his Hindu scheduled caste

community people filed O.S.No.39 of 2018 before the District Munsif, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

Sivagiri not to construct any construction in the said patta land in Ayyapuram

village in Survey No.728/3 measuring 91 cents. The second respondent

belongs to ward no.33, Ayyapuram village, Puliyangudi Municipality.

Subsequently, he was posted as Municipality Commissioner, Kadiyanellur

and working as Municipality Commissioner (in charge), Puliyangudi for the

past one year. Already the representation was given as against the second

respondent due to his several financial irregularities. Therefore, the second

respondent gave a false complaint against the petitioners with malafide

intention. FIR in Crime No.47 of 2019 was filed only to harass the petitioners

and no such occurrence was took place as alleged by the prosecution. The first

respondent Police also without conducting fair investigation, filed final report

and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Sivagiri. Therefore, the pending C.C.No.137 of 2019 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri is liable to be quashed.

6.No counter has been filed on the side of the respondents.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that

the second respondent lodged a false case against these petitioners and based

on the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR without conducting

proper investigation, filed final report and the same is pending before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. In fact on the date of occurrence, the

petitioners were not at all present and on the date of occurrence, the second

petitioner was in Virudhunagar under training. While so, due to previous

enmity between the community people, the false complaint has been lodged.

Already a civil suit was filed with regard to suit property and the same is also

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. Even according to

the FIR and charge sheet, no specific allegation as against these petitioners

and the allegations are vague and the second petitioner has produced the

certificate from the Department that he was under training from 11.02.2019 to

16.02.2019. While so, in order to wreck vengeance, the present complaint has

been lodged by the second respondent. The first respondent also without

conducting proper investigation, filed final report. Therefore, the charge sheet

in C.C.No.137 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Sivagiri is liable to be quashed.

8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent

would contend that based on the complaint given by the second respondent,

the first respondent registered FIR and after elaborate investigation, filed final

report. As per final report, there are some eye witnesses to the occurrence and

prima facie materials available to proceed with the case as against the

petitioners. At this stage, the case against the petitioners cannot be quashed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

since the allegations are serious in nature. Further they restrained the public

servant from doing official duty. The petitioners have to face the trial and the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would

contended that on the date of occurrence, when the second respondent visited

an official visit to construct the water tank for the public, the petitioners

abused obscene words and pelted stones towards him and they restrained the

public servant from discharging official duty. The second respondent along

with other officials returned back without measuring the property. As per FIR

and final report, there are prima facie materials to proceed as against these

petitioners. The plea of alibi is the defence to be taken before the trial Court.

While exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot

entertain the defence of alibi. These petitioners have to face trial and the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.To substantiate his claim, he relied upon the following judgments:-

(I)Ramveer Upadhyay and another v. State of U.P. And another reported

in 2022 SCC Online SC 484

(ii)C.Gunasekaran v. State reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 3002

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

11.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

12.On perusal of the records, it is admitted fact that the petitioners and

the second respondent belongs to same village and already there is civil

dispute pending between the parties and according to the second respondent,

on the date of occurrence, these petitioners have abused in filthy language and

pelted stones on him. They restrained the public servant from discharging

official duty.

13.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the

knowledge of this Court that already there is an enmity between the

petitioners and the second respondent with regard to religion. These

petitioners belong to Hindu scheduled community and the second respondent

belongs to Christian scheduled community. There is previous enmity between

them. Already the petitioners sent a representation before the District

Collector as against the second respondent on 10.09.2018 itself and the copy

of the compliant was produced. Further the petitioners produced the copy of

the training order of the second petitioner.

14.On perusal of the complaint, it reveals that already there is a civil

dispute pending between the second respondent and petitioners. The second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

petitioner was under training from 11.02.2019 till 16.02.2019 at

Virudhunagar. The date of occurrence is 15.02.2019. But on the date, the

second petitioner was in training. It is true that Alibi is defence to be taken

before the trial Court. There are some enmity between the parties and the

allegations made against the petitioners are vague and nobody was injured in

the case and the first petitioner is aged about 70 years and the complaint was

also lodged as against the second petitioner, who was in training at

Virudhunagar on the alleged date of occurrence. These circumstances shows

that the complaint was given due to the previous motive between the parties

with malafide intention. Even assuming that the occurrence was true, it is

admitted fact that already the first petitioner has filed suit with regard to suit

property. While pending of the suit, these petitioners entered into the disputed

land. While so, in order to protect the right of the petitioners, there will be

chance for wordy quarrel. Due to wordy quarrel, the complaint was lodged by

alleging that they restrained the public servant from discharging the duty.

Even according to the averments of the complaint, the allegations are vague

and in order to protect the rights of the petitioners, they made quarrel and in

that aspect, the case against the petitioners is trivial in nature and thereby, this

Court can quash the FIR.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

15.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the

following judgments:-

(I)Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 8 SCC 714

(ii)Ramachandran and others v. State reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Cr.)

266 (DB)

(iii)Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another

reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423

(iv)Abdul Agis and State and another in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of

(v)V.Sivakumar and others v. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.6173 of

(vi)Ki.Ve.Ponnaiyan and Others v. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.134

of 2021

(vii)K.Sivakumar and others v. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.25400

of 2021

(viii)N.S.Madhanagopal and another v. K.Lalitha reported in 2022 SCC

Online SC 2030

(ix)Meeran Mytheen v. State and another in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20004 of

(x)C.Jotheeswaran v. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.1263 of 2021

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

16.On careful perusal of the said judgments, it is clear that the

prosecution has to explain the delay in lodging the complaint and registration

of FIR and it is clear that when the allegations made in the FIR does not

constitute any offence and based on the vague allegations, if the complaint

given on malafide intention and to prevent the abuse of process of Court, the

FIR can be quashed. In the case on hand also, there is dispute pending

between the petitioners and the second respondent and the second petitioner

was not at all present in the scene of occurrence and the complaint was lodged

with malafide intention and the matter is trivial in nature.

17.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon

the following judgments:-

(I)Ramveer Upadhyay and another v. State of U.P. And another reported

in 2022 SCC Online SC 484.

(ii)C.Gunasekaran v. State reproted in 2022 SCC Online Mad 3002.

18.On careful reading of the said judgments, it is clear that in exception

cases, for preventing the abuse of process of Court, the High Court can

exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quash criminal

proceedings. However, interference would only be justified when complaint https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

did not disclose any offence or was patently frivolous, vexatious or

oppression. In the case on hand also, there is a motive between the second

respondent and the petitioners in respect of religious and temple, thereby the

complaint was given with malafide intention.

19.In view of the aforesaid judgments and as discussed above, this

Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in in C.C.No.137 of

2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri is

quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.09.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Mrn To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi Police Station, Tirunelveli 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.8869 of 2019

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mrn

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8869 of 2019

26.09.2023

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