[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
T.Lenin vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.8298 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8298 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5646 and 5647 of 2024
1. T.Lenin
2. L.Vennila
3. L.Vivek Eswar
4. L.Abinisha
... Petitioner/Accused No.
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by. the Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Police Station,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
Cr.No.86/2023
.... Respondents / Complainants
2. R.Vimala ..... Respondents /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.8298 of 2024
162/2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R-2 : Mr.A.Arunprasad
ORDER
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court, though wide in
amplitude, is circumscribed by self-imposed restraint evolved
through judicial precedent. It is not intended to conduct a mini trial
at the threshold nor to weigh the sufficiency of evidence as though
exercising appellate scrutiny. The power exists to prevent abuse of
process and secure the ends of justice, but not to short-circuit
legitimate prosecution.
2. The present petition invokes such jurisdiction to quash
criminal proceedings arising out of allegations which, according to
the petitioners, spring essentially from a money transaction dressed
up as criminal prosecution. The respondents, however, contend that
the dispute transcends a mere civil disagreement and discloses acts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of assault, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and offences
under the special enactment prohibiting charging of exorbitant
interest.
3. The case thus presents a familiar but delicate question at
the intersection of civil liability and criminal culpability, whether the
criminal process has been misused for recovery leverage, as alleged
by the petitioners, or whether the allegations disclose prima facie
ingredients warranting trial.
Gist of the prosecution case:
4. The prosecution case, as emerging from the final report, is
that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, a coconut cultivator
owning about two acres of coconut garden, had longstanding
commercial dealings with the 1st petitioner who runs M.M.A. Traders.
5. It is alleged that on various occasions the defacto
complainant borrowed a sum of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- for
urgent family needs and was repaying the same through supply of
coconuts. According to the prosecution, despite such supplies, the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner allegedly collected coconuts worth over Rs.20,03,535/-
and thereby extracted more than what was legally due.
6. It is further alleged that notwithstanding such excess
recovery, the 1st petitioner demanded an additional sum of Rs.
15,00,000/- and had secured signed blank cheques, promissory
notes and signed papers from the defacto complainant and her
husband.
7. The gravamen of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2023,
when the defacto complainant and her husband went to the house of
the 1st petitioner for reconciliation of accounts, all the accused
wrongfully restrained, assaulted and criminally intimidated them,
demanding payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and threatening them with
death. The husband of the defacto complainant allegedly sustained
injuries requiring treatment at Government Hospital, Pattukkottai.
8. Following investigation, the respondent police laid final
report for offences under Sections 342, 294(b), 352, 324 and 506(ii)
IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Women Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging
Exorbitant Interest Act, which has culminated in C.C.No.162 of
2024.
Grounds for quash:
9. The petitioners seek quashment broadly on the following
grounds:
(i) The entire dispute arises out of commercial and debtor-
creditor transactions and is purely civil in nature.
(ii) Allegations regarding blank cheques and promissory notes
are fabricated.
(iii) There are material contradictions regarding place of
occurrence, nature of assault and medical evidence.
(iv) Delay in FIR reaching Court and alleged alterations in
Accident Register create grave suspicion.
(v) False implication is alleged due to political influence and
pressure to write off outstanding dues.
(vi) Petitioners contend the prosecution is mala fide and
intended to coerce abandonment of civil claims.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Submissions on either side:
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process. It was
argued that the substratum of the complaint pertains to accounts
between parties over coconut supply transactions, which can at best
give rise to civil remedies. The learned counsel would submit that
allegations of assault have been engineered to convert a monetary
dispute into a criminal case. It was further argued that
inconsistencies in complaint, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
and accident register render the prosecution inherently improbable.
Reliance was placed upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1,
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.,2 and Harshendra Kumar
D. Vs Rebatilata Koley3 to contend that criminal law cannot be
permitted to be used for settling civil scores.
11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
submitted that the final report discloses specific overt acts against
each accused. It was argued that existence of civil elements does not
1 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
2 (2006) 6 SCC 736
3 2011 (3) SCC OnLine 351
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
eclipse criminality when allegations disclose assault, intimidation
and illegal extraction of exorbitant interest. The learned counsel for
the defacto complainant submitted that disputed questions of fact
and evidentiary inconsistencies are matters for trial and not grounds
for quash. Reliance was placed on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra4, Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of
Delhi)5, and Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra6
to contend that meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible
at quash stage.
Points for consideration:
12. The point that arises is whether the criminal proceedings
in C.C.No.162 of 2024 fall within the parameters warranting
quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), or
whether the allegations disclose triable offences requiring
adjudication in trial?
4 2021 19 SCC 401
5 AIR 2021 SC 1531
6 2019 14 SCC 350
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Analysis:
13. It is trite that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are
extraordinary. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court delineated limited categories for quashment. Unless
allegations are absurd, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide,
criminal proceedings ought not be interdicted. In Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra8, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cautioned High Courts against conducting mini trials
at threshold.
14. The principal contention is that the matter is purely civil.
This Court is unable to accept such sweeping submission. Mere
existence of commercial transactions does not efface allegations of
assault, intimidation or illegal coercive recovery. The complaint does
not rest merely on accounting disputes; it contains allegations of
physical violence, confinement and criminal intimidation. Whether
those allegations are ultimately proved is matter for evidence. At this
stage, this Court cannot hold that prosecution is camouflage for civil
litigation alone.
7 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
8 supra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Insofar as the offence under Section 342 IPC is concerned,
the complaint and witness statements specifically allege that when
the defacto complainant and her husband went to the house of the
1st petitioner for settlement of accounts, they were prevented from
leaving the premises unless the additional amount demanded by the
accused was paid. The allegation that they were wrongfully
restrained and confined inside the premises, coupled with threats
that they would not be permitted to leave otherwise, prima facie
attracts the ingredients of wrongful confinement under Section 342
IPC. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved is a matter for
trial, but at this stage, this Court is unable to hold that no offence
under Section 342 IPC is made out.
16. In respect of Section 324 IPC, the prosecution materials
contain allegations that the accused assaulted the husband of the
defacto complainant with a wooden log and caused injuries, which is
sought to be corroborated through the Accident Register. Though the
petitioners attempted to assail the injury particulars by referring to
inconsistencies and alleged interpolations, such matters lie in the
realm of appreciation of evidence. At the threshold stage, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allegations coupled with medical materials prima facie disclose an
offence under Section 324 IPC, and this Court cannot undertake a
roving enquiry into the evidentiary worth of such materials while
exercising quash jurisdiction.
17. Equally, the allegations under Section 294(b) IPC cannot
be brushed aside at the threshold. The complaint contains specific
averments that the 1st petitioner abused the defacto complainant and
her husband in filthy and obscene language during the occurrence.
At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this
Court is not expected to test the evidentiary sufficiency of those
allegations. Once the complaint discloses use of obscene abusive
words in the course of the occurrence, the ingredients necessary to
sustain the charge at this preliminary stage cannot be said to be
wholly absent.
18. Whether injury records contain interpolation or
contradictions is a matter for cross-examination. Threat to kill
unless Rs.15 lakhs is paid is specifically alleged. Such allegations
cannot be brushed aside as purely civil rhetoric. As regards Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
506(ii) IPC, the complaint specifically alleges threats to life, coupled
with the demand for payment of Rs.15,00,000/-, and an assertion
that unless the amount was paid the victims would be killed. Such
allegations, taken at face value as this Court is bound to do at this
stage, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation
punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC. Whether the threat was real,
intended to cause alarm, or ultimately proved are matters squarely
within the province of trial.
19. Likewise, the allegation that exorbitant interest was
extracted and coercive demands continued despite alleged excess
recovery furnishes a prima facie foundation for invocation of Section
4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,
2003, and whether the ingredients of the special enactment stand
established is again a matter to be tested in evidence and not in
proceedings for quashment. Allegations that excessive recovery was
made far beyond principal, coupled with coercive demands, form part
of prosecution narrative. Whether ingredients of the special
enactment stand established is matter for trial. At quash stage, this
Court cannot return a finding of non-applicability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. Considerable emphasis was laid on discrepancies regarding
occurrence inside house or portico, alteration in accident register
and paucity of injuries. This Court is of the view that these are
classic matters of defence. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be
transformed into forum for testing contradictions. As held in Kamal
Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra9, probable defence
cannot found quashment.
21. Allegations of political motivation remain unsupported by
unimpeachable material. Mala fides, even if alleged, do not by
themselves nullify prosecution when factual foundation for offences
exists. It was argued that family members have been unnecessarily
roped in. However, overt acts are attributed against each accused.
This is not a case of omnibus implication bereft of particulars.
22. On careful examination, none of the State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal10categories are attracted. Allegations cannot be termed
absurd. No legal bar to prosecution is shown. Case does not disclose
abuse warranting exercise of extraordinary power.
9 supra
10 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. Criminal law may not be invoked to settle private scores;
equally, allegations of criminal conduct cannot be neutralised merely
because parties have prior monetary dealings. The present case
involves disputed questions of fact, competing versions, evidentiary
contradictions and issues requiring appreciation by the trial Court.
24. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot trench upon the
domain of trial by evaluating defence pleas on merits. The petitioners
are at liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court,
including discharge, if available in law, and all factual
inconsistencies may be urged during trial.
25. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition fails and stands
dismissed. The proceedings in C.C.No.162 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, shall proceed in
accordance with law and be concluded uninfluenced by any
observation made in this order, which are only for deciding this
quash petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. However, considering the nature of allegations and
relationship of parties, the personal appearance of the petitioners
before the learned Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the
following occasions:
(i) at the time of furnishing copies and initial appearance, if so
required;
(ii) at the time of framing of charges, if any;
(iii) at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.;
(iv) at the time of pronouncement of judgment; and
(v) on such other dates as the learned Trial Judge may
specifically direct their presence. Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5647 of 2024 is
allowed.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Pattukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Police Station,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
