[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Nallasivam vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 10.02.2026
Pronounced on: 16.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.18518, 18519 of 2025, 7508, 7509, 7500, 3819 and 7499 of
2023
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025:
Nallasivam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by The Inspector of Police,
Chinnadharapuram Police Station,
Karur District.
2. K.Kandhasamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call
for records of the impugned Charge Sheet in C.C.No.177 of 2022 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aruvakurichi, Karur District and quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner: Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1
Mr.K.Sukumar for R2
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.9169 of 2023:
1. K. Kandhasamy
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
2. N.K.K.RAVIEKKUMAR
(Wrongly shown as Ravikkumar) Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Chinnadharapuram Police Station,
Karur District. (Crime No.64 of 2021)
2.Nallasivam Respondent(s)
CRL OP(MD) NO. 9182 of 2023:
1.Kavitha
2.Rasammal Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Chinnadharapuram Police Station,
Karur District.
2. Nallasivam Respondent(s)
In both cases:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
Mr.N.Anandakumar for R2
Prayer In both cases: To call for records in CC.No.176 of 2022 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Aravakurichi to quash the same
COMMON ORDER
The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025 has been filed to quash the
charge sheet in C.C.No.177 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Aruvakurichi, Karur District. The petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9169
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
and 9182 of 2023 have been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.176 of 2022
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aruvakurichi, Karur
District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that earlier one Kandhasamy and Nallasivam
had a verbal altercation over the land dispute, for which the case was registered and
the same is also pending. The said Nallasivam obtained permission from EB to
install an electric motor in his agricultural land, for which he wanted to erect an
electric pole in a common pathway. On 29.03.2021 at about 1.45 P.M, the said
Kandhasamy came to know regarding the erection of electric pole and that the said
Nallasivam is going to his agricultural land with all electrical materials in one
Pitchaimuthu's tractor, due to which the Kandhasamy's son one Raviekumar called
the Pitchaimuthu over phone and explained the situation and asked him not to
proceed further. But the Nallasivam proceeded further by driving the tractor into the
common pathway. At that time the Kandhasamy's son Raviekumar prevented the
Nallasivam who is driving the tractor and was trying to get the keys from the tractor.
The said Nallasivam attacked the Kandhasamy's son on his nose and when the
Kandhasamy was trying to prevent the same, the Nallasivam attacked
the Kandhasamy with aruval and thereafter, the Kandhasamy's wife and daughter-in-
law were also trying to prevent the Nallasivam. But the said Nallasivam attacked the
Kandhasamy's wife and daughter-in-law also and thereafter, the said Nallasivam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
Pitchaimuthu and 3 known persons attacked the Kandhasamy's family members and
threatened them with dire consequences. According to Nallasivam he was also
attacked by Kandhasamy and his family. Thereafter the Kandhasamy lodged the
complaint against Nallasivam and others and F.I.R came to be registered in Crime
No. 63 of 2021 on 30.03.2021 on the file of the 1 st respondent initially for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C was registered and later
the respondent police altered the section and filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 177 of
2022 against the Nallasivam and other accused for the offences under Sections
294(b), 323, 326, 506(ii) of 1.P.C r/w 4 of TNPHW before the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur. Against the same the 1st accused
Nallasivam had filed the quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 21545 of 2025.
3. The complaint preferred by the said Nallasivam was also enquired and FIR
was registered in Crime No.64 of 2021 and the same taken on file in C.C.No.176 of
2022 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur
for the alleged offences under sections 341, 324 and 506(1) of IPC. Against the same
the 1st and 2nd accused Kandhasamy and Raviekumar had filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9169
of 2023 and 3rd and 4th accused Kavitha and Rasammal had filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
9182 of 2023 for the same C.C.No.176 of 2022. The case of the prosecution is that
the said Kandhasamy’s family had attacked Nallasivam on his head, shoulder with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
iron rod, wooden logs and Nallasivam was treated in hospital as inpatient, wherein
the injury ought to be treated with stitches on head.
4. Since all three cases arises from the same cause of action and it is the case
of case in counter, all the three quash petitions were taken together and common
order is passed.
5. Heard Mr.N.Ananda Kumar the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
/ Nallasivam in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 21545 of 2025 and 2nd respondent / Nallasivam in
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9169 and 9182 of 2023, Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, the learned
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for 1st respondent in all the three
petitions, Mr.K.Sukumar the learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 21545 of 2025 and Mr.N.Suresh, the learned Counsel appearing
for petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9169 and 9182 of 2023 and perused the records.
6. The primary contention of the petitioners in all the three Crl.O.P. petitions
are that the informant and the investigating officer are one and the same person,
hence the investigation becomes vitiated as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab in Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011 vide judgment
dated 16.08.2018. This Court is not accepting the said contention since the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
cannot be ground for quashing the FIR. It depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case as held in Mukesh Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 10
SCC 120 wherein the Constitution Bench had held FIR cannot be automatically
quashed merely because the complainant and investigating officer are the same
person and the question of bias or unfair investigation must be determined on the
case-by-case basis by considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case there is no basis as alleged by the parties. Therefore, the said ground is
rejected.
7. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 21545 of 2025 the alleged offences are under sections
294(b), 323, 326, 506(ii) of 1.P.C. read with section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002. To consider whether the section 294(b) is attracted
the said section is extracted hereunder:
“Section 294. Obscene acts and songs. —Whoever, to the annoyance of
others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any
public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
The said section is applicable if the accused utters any words to the annoyance of
others in public place. In the present case, on reading of charge sheet would indicate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
that the two words uttered by the accused Nallasivam would not indicate the same
would not be at the “annoyance of others”. Further it is a fight between Nallasivam
and K.Kandhasamy and his family members and three persons who had helped the
erection of pole, which would indicate it is not uttered in public place. In such
circumstances, the ingredients of section 294(b) are not attracted and the said section
is not applicable.
8. The next contention is that the section 323 and 326 are not attracted. The
said sections are extracted hereunder:
"Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. —Whoever, except in
the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.
Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means. —Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily
causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or
cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or
by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale,
to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
The allegation against the petitioner Nallasivam is that he had attacked Kandhasamy,
his son Raviekumar and his daughter Kavitha by hand, wooden log, stones and
aruval and caused grievous injury. On perusing the doctor’s statement, it is seen that
the doctor had stated that the said Kandhasamy and Kavitha were treated as inpatient
for three days and he had issued a certificate as “simple injury”. If it is simple injury
then it is not necessary to treat as inpatient, therefore this Court is of the considered
opinion that the injury caused to Kandhasamy and Kavitha are simple injury. Further
there are three persons on the side of the complainant and on the other side there is
only one person i.e. the petitioner Nallsivam alone, then the petitioner would have
defended himself and there is no evidence for voluntarily causing hurt to the
complainant Kandhasamy and his family, but it is only self defence. In such
circumstances, the sections 323 and 326 is not attracted as far as the allegations
committed towards Kandhasamy and Kavitha are concerned.
9. As far as the injury caused to Raviekumar is concerned the doctor’s
statement states that he had treated him for three days as inpatient and had issued a
certificate as “grievous injury”. On perusing the charge sheet, it states that the
Raviekumar was injured in nose due to punch on the nose. Further the charge sheet
states that Kandhasamy was injured on hands and forehead due to aruval, but the
injury for Kandhasamy is only simple injury as per doctor’s statement, which is
discussed as supra. Therefore, the injury to Raviekumar is only due to hands and not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
due to wooden logs or aruval. As held supra, the petitioner would have defended
himself and there is no evidence for voluntarily causing hurt to Raviekumar, but it is
only self defence. In such circumstances, the sections 323 and 326 is not attracted as
far as the allegations committed towards Raviekumar is concerned.
10. The next contention is that the section 506(ii) of 1.P.C. is not attracted.
The said section is extracted hereunder:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. —and if the threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or
to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute
unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both."
This Court has already held that there is no grievous hurt in the present case,
therefore the section 506(ii) is not attracted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
11. The next contention is that the section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 is not attracted. On perusing the charge sheet, it
states that the Kavitha was kicked by the accused Nallasivam. As held supra the
petitioner was acting as self defence since on the side of the complainant there are
three persons using force. Therefore, the allegations that the petitioner kicked the
Kavitha is not acceptable, further there is no material evidence to prove the same.
12. Therefore, all the allegations under sections 294(b), 323, 326, 506(ii) of
1.P.C. read with section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act,
2002 are not attracted and the charge sheet is liable to be quashed as far as
Nallasivam is concerned.
13. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9169 of 2023, the 1st and 2nd accused Kandhasamy and
Raviekumar had filed the petition to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.176 of 2022
and in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9182 of 2023 the 3rd and 4th accused Kavitha and Rasammal
had filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.176 of 2022 for the alleged offences
under sections 341, 324 and 506(1) of IPC.
"Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. —Whoever wrongfully
restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
The word wrongful confinement is defined under section 340 wherein it is stated that
if any person prevents from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, then it
amounts to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the
complainant must prove all the following essential:
1. That there was an obstruction
2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any
direction
3. That the complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the
direction concerned.
The purpose of the section is to ensure that the freedom of a person is protected.
When a person has a right to proceed in a particular direction then the law must
ensure that such right is available to the person. Even if there is a slight unlawful
obstruction, it is deemed to be wrongful restraint. It is neither necessary that the
obstruction caused must be physical nor is the presence of the accused essential for
the restraint to be wrongful under this section. The presence of assault is not required
for the act to amount as wrongful restraint. Even use of mere words to cause
obstruction to the path of a person may constitute as an offence under this section.
14. In the present case, there is a dispute over the land especially pathway and
the petitioner was trying to erect electric poll in the disputed pathway, which is being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
questioned and prevented by the accused. When there is a dispute regarding the
property and pathway and both claim right over the same, then the same may not
constitute obstruction but may amount to objection alone. Further to attract the
provision under section 341, there must be obstruction to move from all sides. In the
present case there was objection to move towards one side only, that too where there
is property dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, the ingredient having
a right to proceed in the direction is not there, hence the said section 341 is not
applicable.
15. The next contention of the petitioner is that the said section 324 is not
applicable. The said section is extracted hereunder:
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. —Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by
means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of
fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive
substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or
to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both."
The ingredients of the section is that a person is causing voluntarily hurt by:
• Any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting; or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
• Any instrument used as a weapon of offence that is likely to cause death; or
• Fire or any heated substance; or
• Any type of poison; or
• Any corrosive substance; or
• Any explosive substance; or
• Any substance that is deleterious to the human body for inhaling,
swallowing or receiving into blood; or
• Any animal
In the present case the accused had used iron pipe rod and wooden log, both are not
coming under the instruments stated in the section. At this juncture, the learned
Counsel appearing for the complainant produced a picture and submitted that the
complainant had grievous hurt wherein the doctor had stitched the wound on head.
But the doctor in the emergency ward in the hospital had given statement stating that
the injury is not grievous. On perusing rival submissions this Court is of the
considered opinion that the said section 324 is not applicable since the accused had
used iron rod and wooden log to hit the complainant which is not the instruments
stated in the section, further the doctor had given statement that the hurt is not
grievous hurt. In such circumstances, the said section 324 is not applicable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
16. The next contention is that the section 506(1) is not applicable. The said
section would be applicable when a person threatens another with any injury to his
person, reputation, property with intent to cause alarm to that person. In the present
case the accused have uttered certain words indicate that there was longstanding
problem between the parties. And the same cannot be considered as criminal
intimidation attracting the provisions of section 506(1).
17. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the accused
are facing offences under sections 324 and 326 and the said sections are serious in
nature, hence the FIR / charge sheet cannot be quashed. This Court is of the
considered opinion that even if there are offences under sections 324 and 326, it is
settled proposition the same may be quashed, if the parties are inclined to
compromise. In the present case, it is case and case-in-counter. Both the parties
agreed for quashing charge sheets on either side. The accused Nallasivam submitted
if the charge sheet against him is quashed, he had no objection in quashing the
charge sheet against Kandhasamy and others. Likewise, the accused Kandhasamy
and others submitted if the charge sheet against them is quashed, they had not
objection in quashing the charge sheet against Nallasivam. Considering the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
this Court is inclined to quash both the charge sheets against Nallasivam and
Kandhasamy and others and accordingly quashed.
18. Accordingly, the charge sheets in C.C.Nos.177 and 176 of 2022 on the file
of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur, are hereby
quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21545 of 2025,
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9169 of 2023 and Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9182 of 2023 are allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
To
1. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Aravakurichi, Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Chinnadharapuram Police Station,
Karur District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025, 9169 and 9182 of 2023
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21545 of 2025,
9169 and 9182 of 2023
16.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
