Madras High Court
G.Bhuvanesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 9 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
G.Bhuvanesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.148 of 2024)
2.Saraswathiamaml ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining in C.C.No.
765 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court V, Tirunelveli as against the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.R.Muthuram
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
charge sheet in C.C.No.465 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court V, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.765 of 2024 for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC. The case of the prosecution
is that on 10.02.2024 at about 06.30 p.m., the second respondent was
standing opposite to her house and at that time, the petitioner was
crossing the road and fearing for the dog, which was barking against him
thrown a stone. The defacto complainant informed that the dog will not
bite and thereafter, there has been abuse between each other. The
petitioner is said to have stated that he would cut the dog into pieces.
The defacto complainant objected to the same and there was a wordy
quarrel and threat by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was lodged
and after investigation, final report has been filed.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that in this case, the petitioner
and the defacto complainant are neighbors. The petitioner was standing
near the defacto complainant's house. At that time, the defacto
complainant's dog was charging and barking against the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner got frightened and asked the defacto complainant to
control the dog. But the defacto complainant let loose the dog and
therefore, there was a wordy quarrel and thereafter, the petitioner left the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
place. With this ill motive and vengeance, the above case has been
registered against the petitioner.
4.He further submits that the respondent police finding that the
occurrence had taken place in the public road, ought to have examined
the neighbors and the persons near the scene of occurrence to find out
whether any such occurrence had taken place. But in this case, the
respondent police had not conducted any investigation in this regard.
The projected eye witness is none other than the son of the defacto
complainant. The other witnesses are observation mahazar witnesses and
police officials. No independent witnesses have been examined.
4.It is further submitted that the petitioner has got selected in the
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. A bare reading of
the complaint itself shows that no offence is made out against the
petitioner. In this case, apart from the verbal abuse in the compliant,
nothing more has happened. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of his
contentions, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.5951 of 2021 dated 11.08.2022 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another vs. K.Lalitha [(2022) 17
SCC 818] for the proposition that threat should be real one and not just
mere words.
6.The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the
defacto complainant is the neighbor of the petitioner and the petitioner is
used to throw stones on his pet dog. Several times, the defacto
complainant had objected and warned the petitioner. But he continued to
cause harm to the dog by throwing stone. Finally, on the date of
occurrence, the defacto complainant had questioned about throwing of
stones. For this, the petitioner used abusive words and stated that he
would cut the dog into pieces without concerning about the life of an
animal.
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
are neighbors. Earlier, there was some misunderstanding between the
neighbors. They were not in cordial relationship with each other. On the
date of occurrence, that is on 10.02.2024, the dog of the defacto
complainant is said to have charged and barked on the petitioner. Hence,
to save himself, the petitioner had thrown stone against the said dog,
which was objected by the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint
was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. He fairly
submitted that pursuant to the said incident, no public person has been
examined as witnesses. Hence, whether the occurrence had taken place at
public place and insult was caused in public cannot be conclusively
stated. With regard to the criminal intimidation, apart from uttering
words, there has been no further action. The petitioner is said to have
been selected for police constable and this case would be an obstacle for
his selection.
8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
9.It is seen that the petitioner is the neighbor of the defacto
complainant of the petitioner. There have been no cordial relationship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
between both family members. On 10.02.2024, it is projected that the
petitioner was passing in front of the defacto complainant's house and at
that time, the defacto complainant's dog was charging and barking. It is
common for any person to save himself from the dog bite and pain and
hence, the petitioner has questioned the defacto complainant for let
loosing the dog and there arose wordy quarrel.
10.It is seen that in this case, apart from the defacto complainant
and his son, no public witnesses have been examined. Admittedly, the
occurrence is said to have taken place in the public road and no neighbor
or public was examined. It is common that in the event of non cordial
relationship between the neighbors, there may be allegations and counter
allegations against each other even for trivial issues. In this case, if
taking the complaint on the whole, then also it is seen that except the
wordy abuse, no further action is made by the petitioner. Mere use of
words would not constitute any offence. Added to it, in this case,
according to the petitioner, he has been selected for the post of Police
Constable. This case is standing against him for his further consideration
in the uniformed services. This case will be the jeopardy to the carrier of
the petitioner and his future would completely ruined. In any event,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
considering the entire statement and charge sheet as a whole, when also
no offence is made out against the petitioner.
11.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.765 of 2024 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Tirunelveli is quashed and this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. It is made clear that since the
petitioner is discharged from the case, this case cannot be put against him
in his future or his education carrier including his recruitment in
TNUSRB. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No 09.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
ta
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court V,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manur 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.21961 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ta
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21961 of 2024
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
