Madras High Court
V.Jeyabharathi vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 April, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.01.2025
Pronounced on : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3305, 3306, 3309 &3310 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4189 of 2024
V.Jeyabharathi ... Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID (South),
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
2.S.Kasirajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No.47
of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thanjavur and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
1/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sricharan Rengarajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Karthick
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Kumaravel
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4192 of 2024
1.S.Baskar
2.S.Raja Thambi
3.M.Chidambaram
4.R.Ramalingam ... Petitioners/
A3, A5 to A7
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID (South),
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.1 of 2022)
2.S.Kasirajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.C.No.47
of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thanjavur and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan
for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Karthick
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Kumaravel
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4189 of 2024 is filed by A4 and Crl.O.P.
(MD).No.4192 of 2024 is filed by A3, A5, A6 and A7 to quash S.C.No.
47 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Court,
Thanjavur in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2.Since both petitions filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.47
of 2024 and the grounds raised are identical, a common order is passed.
3.The brief facts of the case is that one Veerapillai of Athalur
Village, Peravoorani Taluk owned lands and he had no issues, hence he
settled his properties in favour of his sister sons Chinnayapillai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
Rengasamy Pillai, Marimuthu Pillai and Iyyakannu Pillai. Totally there
are 42 properties which were settled to the above persons by Document
No.41 of 1925. Chinnayapillai and Rengasamypillai settled with
Pattukottai properties, Marimuthupillai and Iyyakannu Pillai settled with
Athalur properties.
4.An extent of 20 cents in S.No.218/3 at Palaniyappan Nagar,
Pattukottai was divided and shared between Chinnayapillai and
Rengasamypillai of 10 cents each. Chinnayapillai and his wife
Sundarathachi had no issues. Chinnayapillai died in the year 1943 and
Sundarathachi sold 10 cents of land at Palaniyappan Nagar to
K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar on 01.07.1949 vide Document No.
2088/1949. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on
17.06.1956. Prior to 17.06.1956, female members of a family can only
enjoy the family property but have no right to alienate the property.
Hence, the brothers of Chinnayapillai, namely, Iyyakannu Pillai and
others filed a suit in O.S.No.251 of 1950 before the District Munsif
Court, Pattukottai seeking declaration of sale executed by Sundarathachi
dated 01.07.1949 vide Document No.2088/1949 as void. Thereafter the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
suit was transferred from Pattukottai to the District Munsif Court,
Mannargudi and re-numbered as O.S.No.410 of 1950. The suit was
decreed in favour of Iyyakannu Pillai and others on 28.11.1952.
Sundarathachi, wife of Chinnayapillai died on 10.03.1962.
5.Rengasamy Pillai died in the year 1954 and his wife Alamelu
Achi sold her 10 cents to Manickam Chettiyar on 14.05.1960 vide
Document No.1170/1962 after the Hindu Succession Act came into
force.
6.As regards the property sold by Alamelu Achi, wife of
Rengasamy Pillai to Manickam Chettiyar, the said Manickam Chettiyar
filed a civil suit in O.S.No.132 of 1969 before the Sub Court, Thanjavur
for declaration to declare him as the owner of the property on the basis of
sale deed. The said suit was dismissed on 13.09.1971, against which he
filed an appeal before the High Court, Madras in A.S.No.369 of 1972
and the same was dismissed on 01.12.1975.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
7.Iyyakannu Pillai died in the year 1962 and his son Muthusamy
Pillai and others filed a civil suit in O.S.No.64 of 1969 on the file of the
Sub Court, Pattukottai against the said K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar
seeking for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed in favour of
Muthusamy Pillai on 27.04.1970. Against which, the said
K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.613 of
1970 before the High Court, Madras. The High Court dismissed the
appeal suit by judgment dated 29.04.1976.
8.Based on the decree, Muthusamy Pillai and others filed
execution petitions in E.P.Nos.50 & 51 of 1988 for delivery of
possession and the same dismissed on the ground of delay and limitation.
Against which, C.R.P.Nos.2954 and 2955 of 1986 filed and this Court by
order dated 19.11.1996 allowed the Civil Revision Petitions. Before
passing of orders in the Civil Revision Petitions, the said Muthusamy
Pillai died and his sons, Veeramani and Selvaraj stepped in as legal heirs
and representatives.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
9.One Nagaraj/A2, son of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar sold 18
cents of land [9 cents in S.No.218/2 and 9 cents in S.No.218/3] to
Viswanathan/A1, a former Chairman of Pattukottai by creating a forged
document in Document No.575/1997 dated 16.07.1997 which was kept
as pending document in SRO, Pattukottai. It is seen that in the property
in Palaniyappan Nagar, Pattukottai in S.No.218/2, 17 cents were acquired
by the Pattukottai Panchayat 45 years before as per the records and the
sons of Muthusamy Pillai, namely, Veeramani and Selvaraj were in
possession of 9 cents in S.No.218/3. This being so, Viswanathan/A1
claims possession of the property claiming A2 sold 18 cents of land in
S.Nos.218/2 and 218/3, constructed a shop and rented out to third parties.
The said Veeramani and Selvaraj proceeded with E.P.Nos.50 and 51 of
1988 in O.S.No.64 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai and
the said Viswanathan/A1 was arrayed as party to the proceedings. Since
Viswanathan/A1 was a powerful man with muscle and money power and
hailing from dominant community, a leader to himself in the area,
Veeramani and Selvaraj unable to fight for their legal rights, reclaim the
property declared by the High Court in their favour. Later, the said
Veeramani and Selvaraj approached the second respondent/defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
complainant, who as counsel provided all legal assistance to the said
Veeramani and Selvaraj from the year 1999. The clout and influence of
A1 was such EP could not be listed for adjudication in the list in a
routine manner. With great difficulty, the second respondent brought the
EP to the list on 27.01.2003 and on 31.12.2003, the Sub Court,
Pattukottai ordered delivery of property to Veeramani and Selvaraj.
Against which, one Praveen Kumar and others filed E.A.Nos.12 to 19 of
2004 before the Sub Court, Pattukottai which was dismissed on
23.03.2005. The second respondent/defacto complainant went to the
Court on 24.03.2005 for filing batta, at that time, A1 along with his
henchmen came there, threatened the defacto complainant and even some
of the Advocates advised the defacto complainant to enter into a
compromise on the terms of Viswanathan/A1 which the defacto
complainant refused. In fact, the said Viswanathan/A1 in the open Court
challenged as to how the second respondent’s clients Veeramani and
Selvaraj would take possession of the property and will be alive to enjoy
the property. On dismissal of E.A.Nos.12 to 19 of 2004, A.S.No.31 to 38
of 2005 filed before the District Court, Thanjavur which was dismissed
on 28.10.2005. Thereafter, the another tenant Akilan and four others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
filed C.M.S.A.Nos.30 to 35 of 2006 before the High Court. The High
Court finding the trajectory of the case and how Viswanathan and his
family members successfully obstructing delivery of possession and
threatening Advocates who dare to oppose them and obstructing the
process of law. The High Court passed an order on 19.03.2008 directing
the tenants to vacate the premises within nine months and ordered
delivery of possession to Veeramani and Selvaraj.
10.Despite several nine months passed by, the tenants not vacated
the premises, the property not delivered, the petitioners, family members
of Viswanathan continued to enjoy the property. Hence, the defacto
complainant took steps seeking delivery of possession by approaching
the Sub Court, Pattukottai. Earlier on 14.08.2009 an attempt was made
for delivery of property, but delivery warrant could not be executed since
requisite Police force not available and the Bailiff unable to execute the
warrant. A1 and his family thus caused obstruction, threat and
innumerable sufferings to the defacto complainant in discharging his
professional duty as an Advocate perpetrated by the petitioners.
A1/Viswanathan died on 16.07.2007 and A2/Nagaraj died on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
19.09.2011. The defacto complainant sent representations to the
Inspector of Police, Pattukottai, Deputy Superintendent of Police on
03.01.2009, 26.03.2009 and 14.08.2009 about he being abused,
threatened and fearing for his life and limb sought protection. On
22.04.2010, the defacto complainant went to the Sub Court, Pattukottai
for paying batta and to take steps for issuance of warrant and execution
of the same with the Police aid, but again it could not be executed since
there is no adequate Police strength. Thereafter, the defacto complainant
went to meet his another client Dr.Anbarasan and thereafter went to
Chandra Mess to have his lunch, at that time, A8/Senthil @ Kalyana
Odai Senthil, at the instigation of family members and associates of A1
came there along with henchmen to eliminate the defacto complainant.
Pursuant to the same, A9 using Aruval caused grievous injuries to the
defacto complainant, A10 to A12 using iron rod caused grievous injuries,
A13 and A14 using wooden logs caused injuries to the defacto
complainant, who mercilessly beaten in public and the defacto
complainant suffered grievous injuries.
11.L.W.19/Dr.Anbarasan on coming to know about the incident,
took the defacto complainant to the GRAM Hospital, given first aid and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
thereafter took him to Rohini Hospital, Thanjavur where he was treated
as inpatient from 22.04.2010 to 26.04.2010. Thereafter, the defacto
complainant was referred to Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai for
further treatment where he took treatment from 27.04.2010 to
01.05.2010. The defacto complainant's life could be saved but he was
impaired, his movement restricted, mentally disturbed and he was unable
to concentrate and continue his profession as before. Again he was
admitted in the Hospital from 21.12.2012 to 24.12.2012 and still
continuing his treatment and thus, permanent impediment caused to the
defacto complainant by the muscle men employed by A3 to A7, who are
family members and associates of A1. To prove the fact that in
Pattukottai, the power of A1, his family and his clan cannot be
questioned. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj belong to minority
community in Pattukottai despite legal recourse taken by the defacto
complainant affected and dented their dominance in the area, the
petitioners executed the attack, in a well planned manner, all the accused
conspired and executed the attack on the second respondent, an Advocate
who follows ethics and discharged his legal obligation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
12.On the complaint of second respondent, a case in Crime No.162
of 2010 registered by the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai and the defacto
complainant named several persons in the complaint. But no action taken
against them and even the statement of defacto complainant not recorded.
Hence, the defacto complainant filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.7549 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 11.04.2022 issued
direction to provide police protection to the petitioner, transferred the
case to CBCID, directed to appoint an efficient Officer to conduct
investigation and the Deputy Superintendent of Police to monitor the
investigation. Thereafter, the CBCID took up investigation and re-
registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet filed before the Trial Court on 13.11.2023 which was taken on file
in S.C.No.47 of 2024. Against which, the present petitions filed.
13.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/A4 in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4189 of 2024 submitted that there was civil dispute
between Viswanathan/A1, and defacto complainant’s clients Veeramani
and Selvaraj. The petitioner is A4, wife of Viswanathan, a false case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
projected against Viswanathan, his family members for the incident
which is said to have taken place on 22.04.2010. The petitioner is no
way connected or reason for A8 to A14 attacking the defacto
complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/A4 not present in the scene of
occurrence. Twelve years after the alleged occurrence, the respondent
police roped in the petitioner invoking Section 109 IPC along with other
accused. The second respondent having animosity against the
petitioner's husband forced the respondent Police to rope in the petitioner
without any materials. He would submit that the petitioner's husband
purchased the property from Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar vagayara, took
recourse through the Civil Court to ascertain his right over the property.
Nagaraj/A2, legal heir of Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar executed the sale
deed and the said Nagaraj died on 19.09.2011. To constitute abetment,
the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of
the crime and mere proof that crime would have been committed without
the inter position of the alleged abettor is not enough to rope in the
petitioner on charge of abetment. He further submitted that in this case,
nothing is shown that an act has been committed in consequence of the
abetment and whether it is committed in consequence of the instigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
or pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid which constitutes the
abetment. The petitioner's name included merely on assumption and
presumption which was created by the second respondent without any
basis or proof. The second respondent had some animosity with the
family members of the petitioner, for which the petitioner's name falsely
implicated. Further, the alleged animosity is also not linked or connected
with the alleged attack made on the second respondent. From the charge
sheet filed, it is seen that there are 48 witnesses listed and the statements
recorded. Going by the uncontroverted statement of the witnesses, it is
seen that there is no case made out, there is no direct witness or evidence
produced to satisfy the ingredients of offence of abetment.
14.Further, from the statements of L.W.19 and L.W.20, it is seen
that the defacto complainant who is the son-in-law of Former ADMK
Minister Mr.Veerasamy had clients in Pattukottai and he had been
regularly appearing for them attending Courts in Pattukottai. The alleged
attack made on the defacto complainant could be for other reasons
unrelated to the civil dispute with Viswanathan, which is now projected
against the petitioner to be the reason for abetment to engage the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
accused to attack the defacto complainant. In support of his contention,
the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of
Kishorilal vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 and Saju vs.
State of Kerala reported in (2001) 1 SCC 378. Hence, for the incident
which is said to have taken place in the year 2010, the petitioner was
arrayed as accused merely on assumption and presumption which is not
proper.
15.The learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 and A5 to A7 in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4192 of 2024 in addition to the submissions made by
the learned senior counsel appearing for A4, submitted that in this case
the first and second petitioners/A3 and A5 are the brothers of
A1/Viswanathan and the entire family members and known persons of
A1 falsely implicated in this case. No doubt there was civil suit pending
between A1 and Veeramani and Selvaraj, the defacto complainant is the
Advocate for the said Veeramani and Selvaraj. The petitioners are roped
in on the allegation that the petitioners abetted the other accused, namely,
A8 to A14 in commission of the offence. Admittedly, the petitioners not
present in the scene of occurrence. The petitioner are respectable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
persons in the Society having their own business and since they
happened to be from the family and acquaintance of A1, they are falsely
implicated. Further, A1 who died in the year 2007 was implicated for the
alleged assault which took place in the year 2010. The defacto
complainant’s animosity against A1 is such that even against the dead
person, complaint given for a physical assault. The assertion of rights
before the Civil Court cannot be taken as a personal animosity, it is a
right which is available in law which every citizen can invoke. The
petitioners herein are neither plaintiffs nor defendants in any of the suit
or any application, but they are roped in as accused only for the reason
that they are relatives and acquaintance of A1. The entire statement of
witnesses which are annexed in the charge sheet would go to show that
there is no specific overt act against the petitioners and invoking Section
109 IPC without any material is not permissible.
16.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the following decisions:
1) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in
(2001) 9 SCC 618;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
2) Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police
reported in (2004) 12 SCC 521;
3) Kulwant Singh alias kulbansh Singh vs. State of
Bihar reported in (2007) 15 SCC 670;
4) Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SC 605;
5) Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another [Crl.A.No.1628 of 2021 dated
14.12.2021]
17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent strongly opposed the petitioners’ contention and submitted
that in this case there are totally 14 accused, A1 is the prime accused, a
Former Panchayat President and political bigwig with considerable clout
over his clan with muscle and money power. He made a claim that he
purchased the property from K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar’s legal heir
Nagaraj/A2 vide Document No.575/1997, based on the forged document,
A1 attempted to create revenue records including Patta. The Document
No.575/1997 a pending document and no revenue records could be
created in favour of A1. K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar purchased the
property from Sundarathachi vide Document No.2088/1949 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
01.07.1949 which is much before the Hindu Succession Act coming into
force. Prior to it, the female member of a family can enjoy the property
but have no right to alienate and hence, the sale deed executed by
Sundarathachi in favour of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar is void. In
fact, the said K.O.K.Vaithiaynathan Chettiyar filed an appeal suit in
A.S.No.613 of 1970 since he suffered a judgment against him in O.S.No.
64 of 1969. The High Court dismissed the contention of
K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar confirming that the vendor
Sundarathachi had no legal right to execute the sale deed and this
judgment was passed on 29.04.1976. Now A1 claims that he purchased
the property from A2, legal heir of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar,
using this forged document claiming right over the property and
obstructions created by implanting obstructors who are sitting over the
property at the behest of A1. The High Court declared the obstructors to
vacate the property and deliver the possession of the property to the said
Veeramani and Selvaraj which has not been done. The defacto
complainant took effective steps in pursuing the EP and to remove the
encroachment and obstructors, who are squatting over the property. The
property is enjoyed by the petitioners group. A1 and his family members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
creating problems to the defacto complainant, an Advocate practicing in
Chennai who used to visit Pattukottai for the case and he was constantly
under threat fearing for his life and limb.
18.He would Submit that the defacto complainant sent
representations to the Police which was not acted upon. He took all
effective steps to execute the delivery warrant to remove the encroachers
and the obstructors. This being so, on 22.04.2010 the defacto
complainant was attacked in public by A8 to A14 and thereafter, a case
in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by the Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai and the investigation was on a slow pace. The defacto
complainant filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7549 of
2011 and on the orders of this Court dated 11.04.2022, the case was
transferred to CBCID, who took up investigation and found the motive
and the reason for the attack on the defacto complainant found no rivals
in any manner apart from A1 and his family members for the reason that
the defacto complainant took effective steps to retrieve the property for
his clients Veeramani and Selvaraj. Since the defacto complainant not
deterred even after the threat by A1 and his family members and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
continued to defend his clients, he was attacked mercilessly using deadly
weapons in the public using knife, iron rod and wooden logs. The
defacto complainant was rushed to the Hospital in Pattukottai, thereafter
to the Hospital at Thanjavur where he took treatment as inpatient and
thereafter he was referred to Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, Chennai
where he took treatment as inpatient. After the CBCID taking up
investigation, they visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation
mahaza, rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the
accused who admitted the commission of offence, the witnesses narrated
the role played by A1 and his family members, who were squatting over
the property of the defacto complainant’s clients. The petitioners with
their community dominance and muscle power, successfully kept away
the defacto complainant’s clients Veeramani and Selvaraj, who are
entitled to enjoy the property which is a constitutional right. A4 in this
case is collecting rents from the squatters/obstructors in the property.
Further, the other petitioners are acting in unison with each other to
ensure that their dominance is not questioned or dented and the property
cannot be given away whatever may be orders of the Court. A8 to A14
are the hirelings who had nothing to do with the defacto complainant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
any manner and they have no reason to attack him, admitted in their
confession. The conspiracy and abetment committed by each of the
accused which fact confirmed by the witnesses listed. On collection of
materials, charge sheet filed. The petitioners cannot absolve themselves
by merely saying that they were not present in the scene of occurrence
and they have been roped in, only for the reason they are the family
members and acquaintance of A1 would not proper. No doubt they have
been charged for the offence of abetting. Abetment cannot be brushed
aside since there are sufficient materials. A person to get absolved from
abetment has to prove by producing some positive evidence to show that
they have take all steps and they are not the reason for commission of
offence. Hence, the points raised by the petitioner are factual which has
to be necessarily decided during trial and not in a quash petition. The
petitioners successfully protracting the progress of trial by filing one
petition or other, now a set of persons have come by filing the quash
petition and thereafter, after others might take turns by filing similar
petitions and further protract the trial. Hence, appropriate direction to be
given to proceed with the trial and complete the same without delay
within a stipulated period. As regards the prosecution, they are ready to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
produce witnesses without delay, in any event the entire trial process can
be completed within a period of six months.
19.The learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that the defacto complainant/second respondent submitted that
in this case A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 contention is that they were not
present in the scene of occurrence and there is no confession to connect
them with other accused cannot be taken on face value. The petitioners
are the beneficiary who collect rents and derive from the property which
is squatted by the encroachers and obstructors at the instance of
Viswanthan family members. The manner in which the suit protracted,
delay and obstruction caused in the EP proceedings are testimony to the
active role played by the petitioners. The petitioners are family
members and acquaintance of A1 who all act in unison with each other to
show their supremacy and control over the area. The defacto
complainant is an Advocate following ethics of the noble profession, put
considerable years of practice and defending his clients. He has no
personal interest over the property or personal animosity against the rival
parties in the civil suit. A1 being a political person with men and muscle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
power, former Panchayat President in a deceitful manner by using A2,
created forged document vide Document No.575 of 1997 which is a
pending document. Despite the fact that it is a pending document, A1
approached the Revenue Authorities for issuance of Patta, attempted to
record his ownership and possession in the revenue records.
20.The learned senior counsel further submitted that in this case,
there have been long battle of civil suit from the year 1964 and finally,
EP was filed by L.W.12 and L.W.13 in the year 1988. Till the second
respondent was engaged by them, civil suits successfully put on hold
earlier by filing successive petitions from District Munsif Court to Sub
Court and from Sub Court to District Court and to High Court, civil suit
protracted, A1 sustained the obstruction and encroachment by adopting
all methods. Even in the EP proceedings though it was filed in the year
1988, there was no progress in the EP only after the defacto complainant
entered appearance for Veeramani and Selvaraj in the year 1999.
Thereafter some steps taken by the defacto complainant, the case could
not be listed for one reason or other, it could be listed only on 27.01.2003
and finally on 31.12.2003 the Sub Court, Pattukottai ordered delivery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
property. Again EA filed which was dismissed and finally C.M.S.A.
filed before the High Court and this Court by order dated 19.03.2008
ordered eviction and delivery of property but thereafter to, obstruction
continued and the property not delivered. The defacto complainant took
steps by filing petitions for execution of delivery warrant. The clout of
A1 is such that the Bailiff taking the warrant, could not execute the same,
on one such incident, A3 obstructed the Bailiff, a public servant and
chased him away obstructing the public servant to discharge his duties,
hence a case in Crime No.245 of 2010 for the offence under Sections
147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC registered. It is reported now that the
criminal complaint closed as further action dropped which shows the
influence and clout of the accused. The defacto complainant relentlessly
fighting for a cause and as an Advocate defending his clients, for which,
A1 and his men threatened the defacto complainant even in the court and
acquaintance and the relatives of A1 gone to the house of the defacto
complainant in Chennai and threatened him, but the defacto complainant
was relentless and defending his clients. On 22.04.2010, the defacto
complainant went to the Sub Court, Pattukottai to file petitions, pay batta
to execute the warrant and thereafter, he went to have his lunch, at that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
time, A8 to A14 without any motive or reason as mercenaries attacked
the defacto complainant mercilessly. Later, he could be saved by the
timely intervention of Dr.Anbarasan who gave first aid treatment in
Pattukottai, took him to Thanjavur and thereafter to Chennai where he
was treated as inpatient. The defacto complainant had to continue his
treatment, again got admitted in the year 2012 as inpatient and now he is
with follow up treatment. The defacto complainant, an Advocate with
ethics defending his clients, for which, using muscle and money power a
well orchestrated plan executed to eliminate him but for the timely
intervention, he was saved. The learned senior counsel would submit
that on the complaint given by the second respondent, the local police
registered a case but no action taken and hence, the second respondent
approached this Court by filing a writ petition. At the instance of this
Court, investigation transferred to CBCID and police protection granted
to the defacto complainant. Now, the investigation completed and
charge sheet filed. The witnesses clearly spoken about the role played by
each of the accused. L.W.12 to L.W.18 speak about the civil suit and the
defacto complainant defending his clients and taking all steps to retrieve
the property. L.W.24 and L.W.25 confirm squatting on the disputed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
property, as tenants and they forced to pay rents to the family of A1.
L.W.28 and L.W.29 speak about the compromise talk initiated with the
defacto complainant at the instance of the accused. Further, Doctors
confirm the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. The points
raised by the petitioners are factual. He further submitted that the
decisions relied on by the petitioners are for abetment which is caused
within the family with regard to some dispute in the family life which are
not applicable to the facts of the above case. Hence, prayed for
dismissal.
21.In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied
upon the following decisions:
1) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kanha alias Omprakash
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605;
2) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh and others
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 268;
3) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and
others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688;
4) Chhanga alias Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2017) 11 SCC 115;
5) Jage Ram and others vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2015) 11 SCC 366;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
6) State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat and another
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 149;
7) Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466;
8) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak and others
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 285;
9) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303;
10)Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2011) 10 SCC 765;
11)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram and others
reported in (2009) 4 SCC 26;
12)Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in (2008) 15 SCC 667;
13)State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem alias Chamaru
and another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554;
14)Ram lal and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmi
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 213.
22.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the
materials, it is seen that in this case, the defacto complainant is an
Advocate who was attacked mercilessly in public, with knife, iron rod
and wooden logs by A8 to A14, who have nothing against the defacto
complainant, but for the abetment of the petitioner, there is no reason for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
the attack with deadly weapons. The defacto complainant, a practicing
Advocate with ethics, it is his fundamental duty, obligation and
commitment to appear for his client. In this case, the defacto
complainant appeared on behalf of his clients Veeramani and Selvaraj in
a civil suit. The trajectory of the civil case would prove how at each
stage from the year 1964, from the Munsif Court, Sub Court, District
Court and before the High Court. It took such long years to reach
finality. In this background, proceedings in E.P.Nos.50 and 51 of 1988
has to be considered. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj unable to find
Advocate to fight their case and EP was put in cold storage, unable to be
listed before the EP Court. They took all steps to engage an Advocate
within Pattukottai and the District. The influence of A1 and his family
members were such that no one could came forward to aid Veeramani
and Selvaraj. The petitioners’ influence radiating throughout the
District. The said Veeramani and Selvaraj lastly found a fearless
Advocate engaged the defacto complainant practicing in Chennai. The
defacto complainant took up the case in the year 1999 and pursuing the
case on behalf of his clients, Veeramani and Selvaraj. The defacto
complainant pursuing the case from the year 1999, but only in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
2003 he could bring the case to the list and finally on 31.12.2003 the Sub
Court ordered delivery of property. Thereafter, E.A. filed by the
obstructors got dismissed and thereafter appeal filed before the District
Court which was also dismissed on 28.10.2005, against which
C.M.S.A.Nos.30 to 35 of 2006 filed before the High Court. This Court
on 19.03.2008 directed the obstructors to vacate the property within nine
months and ordered delivery. Despite the order of this Court, the
obstructors not vacated and handed over the possession of property. The
obstructors frequently changed. Even the execution warrant could not be
executed and on one instance A3 restrained and threatened the public
servant while executing the warrant and a case in Crime No.245 of 2010
for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC
registered against him. This FIR now reported closed as further action
dropped. The Police aid was denied for the reason that there is no
enough Police strength to ensure execution of warrant of eviction. The
defacto complainant could not be deterred in pursuing his clients case,
but the other side successfully obstructed the execution of EP warrant
and scutlled the due process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
23.Finally, the defacto complainant went to the Sub Court to file
appropriate petition and to pay batta for execution of warrant on
22.04.2010 and thereafter, he went to have his lunch to a mess, at that
time, A8 to A14 armed with deadly weapons attacked him mercilessly in
public. A8 to A4 had nothing against the defacto complainant, they
acted as mercenaries at the instigation and abetment of the other accused.
The eye witnesses to the occurrence clearly spoken about the attack made
by A8 to A14 with knife, iron road and wooden logs. The defacto
complainant’s friend Dr.Anbarasan took the injured to hospital in
Pattukottai and thereafter to Thanjavur where he took treatment as
inpatient, from there referred to Hospital in Chennai. Due to the timely
intervention of his friend and medical aid, the defacto complainant’s life
could be saved. It is admitted that A1 in this case, a Former Panchayat
President, entered into a sale agreement for the subject property with A2,
legal heir of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar, earlier all Civil Courts till
the highest Court of the State, confirmed sale deed executed by
Sundarathachi in favour of K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar is void.
Despite the same, Document No.575 of 1997 dated 16.07.1997 created
between A1 and A2, thereafter using this as an anchor shield intervened
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
in the EP proceedings and stalled the EP filed in the year 1988 till
04.06.2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are family
members and acquaintance of A1, who is the fulcrum, ensured that the
property is not taken back by the defacto complainant’s clients, but for
the defacto complainant relentless pursuit the case could not have
reached the present stage and it is the defacto complainant who had been
the spoiler to A1 and his family members in continuing their design in
enjoyment and benefits over the property. Further, the petitioners felt
that the 2nd respondent dented their ego and authority within their clan
and public which affected them badly and hence, they all conspired,
engaged the assailants to do away the 2nd respondent. The assailants who
have nothing against the defacto complainant mercilessly attacked him in
public with deadly weapons. If an ethical lawyer is meted with such
treatment in this manner, then no person can live without fear for their
life and limb. Enjoyment of property is a fundamental right under our
Constitution. There are enough and more materials to proceed against
the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash
the case in S.C.No.47 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned
Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
24.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Trial
Court to proceed with the case without further delay as far as practicable
on day-to-day basis and shall ensure that the said trial is concluded
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
01.04.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID (South),
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 12:57:37 pm )
