By observing that the alibi is a defence for the accused which has to be proved in the manner known to law during trial, thus in the present case, the veracity of the travel documents has to be tested, the Madras High Court disposed of the instant criminal original petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the final report in pursuance of a case that was registered against him for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992.
A Single bench of Justice G. Jayachandran disposed of the present criminal original petition instituted by the petitioner against the case that was registered against him for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992, by observing that the petitioner in the present case can seek appropriate recourse before the Court below, before framing of charge, by producing the corroborating documents strengthening his plea of alibi and thereafter file the petition.
The petitioner in the present case arraigned as the second accused was seeking quashing of the final report by way of criminal original petition.
Facts in brief were that there was a property dispute between the de facto complainant and the family members of the petitioner. Mr.Chinnasamy, father of the petitioner, gave power of attorney to the defacto complainant in respect of the property in dispute and died. . The petitioner herein, after his father's demise, misused the power of attorney deed and made attempts to grab the property from the de facto complainant. Suit was filed by Chinnasamy, however the same was dismissed, on his demise. Subsequently, a fresh suit was instituted by the petitioner's mother who was the fourth accused.
Thereafter, Mr. Thangavel, the complainant, informed the respondent- police on November 22, 2014 that the three sons of sons of Chinnasamy trespassed into his land with JCB and demolished the building which was under construction. In pursuance of the same, a case was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992, against the three sons of Chinnasamy and Section 294(b), 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 against the wife of Chinnasamy.
Subsequently, an investigation was conducted and a final report was filed. The petitioner herein who was arraigned as the second accused was shown as the absconding accused and the case against him was thus split up and was registered separately. Hence, the present petition was filed.
It was the case of the petitioner that the alleged act of demolishing the construction of the de facto complainant would not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, 1992 since the damage was not committed during procession, assembly, meeting and other activities. It was further contended that at the alleged time of occurrence of demolition, he was not present at the scene of occurrence, and contended that he was indeed in UAE.
However, this Court had a contrary view with respect to the ground raised by the petitioner that the provision of TNPPDL Act, 1992 will not get attracted for the alleged offence. To further clarify the same, the Court took into consideration Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, 1992. In view of the same, the Court observed that by simple reading of the provision it was clear that it was not necessary that damage to the public property should be caused only in the course of meeting, assembly or procession. Even otherwise, if the material is available that any property damaged as an act of vandalism, it is punishable under Section 3 of TNPPDL, 1992, the Court stated.
Further with respect to the plea of alibi, the petitioner produced the travel documents before the present Court. In respect of the same this Court placed its reliance on the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab wherein the Apex Court observed that the word alibi means "elsewhere". The plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code. It is a rule of evidence recognized Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, a plea of alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
In tune with the aforesaid observation, the Court submitted that the alibi is a defence for the accused which has to be proved in the manner known to law during trial. In this case, the genuineness of the travel documents has to be tested. Mere production of Airline ticket and passport without testing the veracity of the document and the content is not adequate to quash the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court noted. The High Court cannot embark upon testing the evidence while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court remarked.
Thus, the petitioner in the present case was given the liberty to seek appropriate recourse before the Court below, before framing of charge, by producing the corroborating documents strengthening his plea of alibi and thereafter file the petition. And in pursuance of such petition, the Trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, the Court directed.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant criminal original petition was disposed of.
Case name: C.GUNASEKARAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS
Picture Source :
