Madras High Court
Ketsiyal Deva Selvi vs The State Represented By on 10 February, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 10.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3315 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P(MD).No.1684 of 2016
1.Ketsiyal Deva Selvi
2.Eroniya
3.Negomiya ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
TVMCH Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.174 of 2015)
2.Murugan ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime
No.174 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime Nos.174 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the respondent police. http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
2.The petitioners are accused persons in the above said crime number. On complaint given by one Murugan, a case has been registered in Crime No.174 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. Against which, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the complaint.
3.The facts of the case briefly are stated hereunder:
(i) One Murugan, who is second respondent was studying in Sadhak Abdullah Appa College, Tirunelveli and had part time employed under Amalan Advocate. The said advocate is a tenant under the petitioners and he was running his office in the first floor of the petitioners' premises. The first petitioner is wife of one Rooban, second and third petitioners are their sons. There seems to be some dispute with regard to the tenancy.
(ii) On 06.11.2015, at about 08.45.p.m, the second respondent was leaving his house, at that time the petitioners herein, who were landlord in the same building had wrongfully restrained him and abused him with filthy language, threatened him not to enter the building again and also assaulted him. Due to which, the victim sustained injuries at near his left eye and his spine. Therefore, the victim shouted, on hearing the noise, Boothathan and Utchimakali, who were working along with the victim came there. Thereafter, the victim went to the police station and lodged the complaint.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent was working under Amalan Advocate, who had created documents showing that prior to purchase of the property, the tenancy agreement has been entered and he had been refusing to vacate the said premises and demanding ransom. Therefore, the first petitioner's husband had lodged a complaint against the said Amalan and the same came to be registered in Crime No.175 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 506 (i) IPC.
5.He also submitted that the said Amalan being an advocate has used the same property, threatened the petitioners that they would be implicated in other cases, if his demand of ransom is not paid. Despite the said Amalan has not vacated the premises, had kept the room in lock and making false allegations as the bundles and articles kept inside the room were damaged, destroyed by the mischief of the petitioners.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the first petitioner had given a complaint against the said Amalan for the damage caused to the ceiling of the building, poured waste water, caused damage and obstructing to the Hotel business, which were carried out by the petitioners. Though CSR No.124 of 2015 was given, thereafter, the respondent police failed to take further action at the instance of the said Amalan.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they have been implicated in the above case in order to wreck vengeance for a civil dispute and it would amount to an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed for quash the complaint.
8.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent was working under Amalan Advocate, in part time in furtherance to depend of his future and carrier, he had been attending his office daily from 06.00.pm., to 09.00.p.m. On such occasion, he was waylaid by the petitioners, threatened and assaulted by them. The petitioners, who had purchased the property, using their mutual power and instructed the said Amalan to vacate the place. Hence, they assaulted the second respondent. As a result, the second respondent approached the respondent police and lodged a complaint. He prayed for dismissal of this petition.
9.The learned counsel for the first respondent police submitted that the petitioners had purchased the property on 17.03.2014 from one Sangaralingam, Nithiya Balaiah and Stephen by way of a registered sale deed document No.1316 of 2014 in SRO, Tirunelveli and the property is a shopping complex. The said Amalan Advocate is paying monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- by way of tenancy agreement, dated 01.03.2014. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
10.The learned counsel for the first respondent police also submitted that the Advocate is a tenant and he has been paying regularly the tenancy upto October 2015. The petitioners, who were running a Hotel in the ground floor and there was some civil dispute between them.
11.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the Advocate Amalan. Admittedly, Murugan/R2 is part time employee under Amalan. Further, it is admitted fact that the Advocate vacated the premises and running his office in another place. The informant/Murugan is attending Advocate's office in the building of the petitioner. Further, except for the empty threat, there have been no other action furtherance.
12.It is seen that the civil dispute has been given criminal color. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash this petition.
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.174 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
das
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/7
CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
TVMCH Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section,
Madurai bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/7
CRL.OP(MD)No.3315 of 2016
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
das
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.3315 of 2016
and
CRL.M.P(MD).No.1684 of 2016
10.02.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/7