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 1/8 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 2/8 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 3/8 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 4/8 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 5/8 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 6/8 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
7/8
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
8/8