Madras High Court
L.Muruganantham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 July, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.No.10587 of 2021
1. L.Muruganantham
2. L.Sumithra Devi ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Dharapuram Police Station,
Dharapuram Circle,
Tiruppur District.
2. Selvakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the Criminal Proceedings in
C.C.No.65 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Dharapuram and quash the same.
For Petitioners
For P1 : Mr.L.Muruganantham
Party-in-Person
For P2 : Mr.A.Raghuraman
For Respondent
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.P.Palaninathan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.65 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2020, when the defacto complainant was grazing his cattle behind the Thenmalar School, the first accused scolded him with filthy language and raised objection to graze the cattle. He also attacked him with his hands and legs by kicking him. Therefore, he fell down and sustained injury on his back. At that juncture, the mother of the first accused also attacked him with hands. Therefore, he sustained injury in his right elbow.
3. The first petitioner appeared in person through video conference and submitted that the second respondent is the trespasser in his property which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The employer of the second respondent viz., Dhandapani and his son viz., Karthikeyan are opponents to the petitioners due to previous https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 enmity. Therefore, the present complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners with malafide intention. The property ad measuring 4.5 acres comprised in T.S.No.21/1B1 situated at Ward 7 Block 7 of Dharapuram Town is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners.
3.1. He further submitted that the second respondent is none other than the henchman engaged by the said Dhandapani and his son Karthikeyan and he trespassed into the petitioner's property and attacked the petitioners. Already there is a suit pending between the second respondent employer and the second petitioner in respect of the property in O.S.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram. In order to settle the civil dispute between them, the present complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.65 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, and their specific role are categorically mentioned in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 complaint. He further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only during the trial by let in evidence, since all the points raised by the petitioners has to be tested before the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.65 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. While admitting this petition, this Court granted interim stay and therefore the trial proceeding has been stalled.
6. Heard Mr. L.Muruganantham, Pary-in-Person, Mr.A.Raghuraman, learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner, Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Palaninathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
7. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners abused the second respondent with filthy language and also attacked him. It is seen that the first petitioner is the disabled person to the tune of 80% disability. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu is paying to 14.5% of disabled persons including persons with muscular dystrophy, a sum of Rs.1500/- by stating the rationale in their counter affidavit filed before this Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the first petitioner that muscular dystrophy is one of the severe disabilities. In fact, the person with disability called Muscular Dystrophy is not eligible for appearing to Civil Judge examination on the ground that the disability severe in nature.
8. While it being so, there is absolutely no possibility for the first petitioner to kick the second respondent on his chest. The first petitioner is not able to stand or walk without the others help. The second petitioner is also aged lady and she already lost her hearing and she has nervous disorder suffering from serious orthopedic arthritis, severe hip and back spine problem. The petitioners also annexed medical certificate and treatment records in the typed set of papers. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
9. In fact, the first petitioner filed complaint before the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.2745 of 2020 and by the said Commission by an order dated 27.08.2021, concluded that the first respondent violated the human right of the first petitioner and ordered compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further directed to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as against the first respondent.
10. It is also seen that the second petitioner already filed suit in O.S.No.58 of 2005 for specific performance on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram in which one interim application had been filed by her. Arising out of the said interim application, a Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.4872 of 2014 and the said Civil Revision Petition was referred to mediation annexed to this Court and posted the matter on 28.02.2020. The employer of the second respondent claims to be a subsequent purchasers in respect of the 2.25 acres out of the undivided share ad measuring 4.5 acres, which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. That apart, the son of the second respondent employer viz., Karthikeyan filed another suit in O.S.No.233 of 2021 as against the first petitioner for partition and separate possession by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 suppressing the suit pending between the second petitioner and his father.
11. In fact, the first petitioner sought permission from this Court to take up the present case through video conference and this Court permitted the first petitioner to argue the case through video conference. The petitioner is a handicapped person and he is practicing Advocate. Therefore, the impugned proceeding was manifestly attended with malafide intention and therefore, the entire proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
12. Further even according to the case of the prosecution to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-
"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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.
13. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-
"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case."
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners.
14. As far as the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is concerned, threat should be a real one and not just a mere words when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Whereas, in the case on hand, there is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C.
15. Insofar as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned as stated supra the first petitioner is a handicapped person up to the level of 80% and in fact he appeared before this Court through video conference and he could not even stand or walk. Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility for the first petitioner to attack the second respondent by his leg, since the first petitioner has severely affected with muscular dystrophy. Therefore, the present proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and initiated only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
16. In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the land mark judgement reported in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
“102..............
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
f)...................
g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
17. Therefore, the entire proceedings is clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners. Hence the proceedings in C.C.No.65 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.07.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rts https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 12 Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram
2. The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram Circle, Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.19291 of 2021
29.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 12