Madras High Court
Unknown vs Ganapathy on 5 April, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.k.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.6269 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4345 and 4346 of 2022
M.Ravikumar
(Wrongly mentioned as M.Kannan
in the private complaint in
PRC No.26 of 2014) ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
Ganapathy ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.26 of 2014, on the file of
the Principal District Munsif-Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel, and quash the
same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Karunanithi
ORDER
This Petition is filed to quash the private complaint filed by the respondent, namely, Ganapathy against the petitioner herein alleging that 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022 they have trespassed into his land, used filthy language, including the caste name and cut the coconuts from the trees owned by him. Hence, the offence under Sections 147, 148,294(b),307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a civil dispute regarding the land in which the alleged occurrence took place and the complainant herein has filed a Suit in O.S.No.71 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Eraniel, and has obtained an interim order of permanent injunction in respect of pathway. In the said suit pending between the respondent/complainant and one Saroja Ganesan, the wife of the first petitioner, in respect of pathway and ''A'' schedule property, over which, the respondent/complainant claims title.
3.As far as pathway is concerned, the respondent has claimed declaration regarding right of passage and injunction restraining the first petitioner's wife or her men and agent from preventing or restraining the petitioners from using the pathway. In such circumstances, it appears that one Ganesan, claiming a right over the coconut tree standing on the pathway, 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022 had tried to harvest the coconuts along with his men, who are arrayed as accused in the private complaint.
4.In fact, the complaint given to the Police was enquired in Crime No.118 of 2010 and the same has been closed as 'mistake of fact'. Thereafter, the present private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) and 379 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Principal District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, has taken the private complaint on file and assigned P.R.C.No.26 of 2014 and has caused summons. The cognizance of the said complaint is challenged in this quash petition on the ground that the right over the coconut tree and ''B'' schedule property is subject matter of the civil suit and there is no material evidence to show that there was unlawful assembly or conspiracy to commit any theft.
5.In the light of the civil proceedings pending, just to wreak vengeance, the present private complaint has been filed in spite of the fact that the Police after due investigation closed the earlier complaint as ''mistake of fact''.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022
6.The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that on 26.10.2010 at 11.30 a.m., at the instigation of the first accused Ganesan, the other accused viz., A2 to A9 assembled unlawfully in front of complainant's house and started plugging the coconuts standing in the disputed land and that when the same was prevented by the complainant, they used abusive language and called the complainant by his caste name.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first accused, against whom, the main allegation is made, for instigating and conspiring with other accused, is no more and the fight between the neighbouring land owners is an outcome of the pending civil suit. He would further submit that this Court by an order dated 26.11.2021, has quashed the proceedings with regard to some of the accused persons.
8.On perusing the records and statement of the complainant, this Court finds that there is no substantial evidence which will lead to the conviction of the accused, even if the statements and the complaint is taken as to be proved. On the face of the record, there are discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence and place of occurrence. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022
9.Hence, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.26 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel, against the petitioner shall stand quashed. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.04.2022 Index :Yes/No Interner : Yes/No aav To The Principal District Munsif-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6269 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
aav Crl.OP(MD)No.6269 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4345 and 4346 of 2022 05.04.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis