Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Nanjappan vs Palanisamy on 26 June, 2024

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                           Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 26.06.2024

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                             Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024
                                             Crl.M.P.No.9114 of 2024
                     1.Nanjappan
                     2.Vasanthi
                     3.Ranjitha
                     4.Balan
                     5.Ponnusamy @ Dinesh
                     6.Jambu @ Sanmugam
                     7.Appusamy
                     8.Prasanth @ Sakthivel
                     9.Ramesh @ Gowtham
                     10.Kuzhainthavelu @ Veluchamy
                     11.Anandan Raj @ Anand Velliangiri
                     12.Rangasamy
                     13.Ramesh @ Velliangiri                                 ... Petitioners

                                                      Vs.

                     Palanisamy                                             ... Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of
                     the code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the impugned order dated
                     11.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamanglam in
                     C.M.P.No.3400 of 2022.



                     _________
                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024




                                   For Petitioners     :          Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
                                   For Respondent       :        Mr.J.Titus Knock


                                                            ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 passed in C.M.P.No.3400 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamanglam.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner purchased the property from one Periyagounder, who is the father of the respondent in the year 2020, without knowing the fact that there was a property dispute between the respondent and his father. The respondent prevented the first petitioner from enjoying the property and filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam and thereafter, he made a false complaint against the petitioners before the Police as if the first petitioner and his associates/other petitioners trespassed into his property and damaged the wall and abused him in filthy language and attacked him _________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 and the Police has not taken any action. Subsequently, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 506(ii), 166, 167 r/w. 109 IPC and the trial Court, vide order dated 11.05.2023, has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners and the other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent and the respondent filed a civil suit in O.S.No.34 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, and, he has not obtained any interim order. He has filed a private complaint before the trial Court and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners. When the matter is seized by the civil Court, the respondent cannot adjudicate the very same matter by way of private complaint before the _________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 criminal Court. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash reported in AIR 2004 SCC 4320 and in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 SC 145.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners trespassed in the property of the respondent and damaged the compound wall and caused life threat to the respondent and therefore, the respondent has filed a private complaint before the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the complaint filed by him against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. If at all the petitioners are having any grievance, they have to approach the trial Court for redressing their grievance.

_________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. It appears that there was a property dispute between the first petitioner and the respondent, for which, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam. While so, it is alleged that the first petitioner and other petitioners have illegally trespassed into the property of the respondent and damaged the compound wall and caused life threat to the respondent, therefore, the respondent has made a complaint before the Police, but no evasive action was taken. Thereafter, he made a private complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 506(ii), 166, 167 r/w. 109 IPC against the petitioners and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by him against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Though the petitioner _________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 claims that the matter is seized by the civil Court and the respondent cannot adjudicate the very same issue before the criminal Court, however, it is alleged that the petitioners have damaged the compound wall and gave life threat to the respondent and therefore, on prima facie consideration, the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. If at all the petitioners are having any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the trial Court for redressing their grievance.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.06.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb To _________ Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamanglam _________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 M.DHANDAPANI, J.

ssb Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2024 26.06.2024 _________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis