Madras High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs The State on 26 November, 2021
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V. Thamilselvi
1 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019
1.Dhanalakshmi
2.Kittathal @ Kittammal
3.Sarayya Devi
4.Manipriya
5.Rathinamoorthy ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State
Represented by The Inspector of Police,
Gomangalam Police Station,
Gomangalam,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.139 of 2016.
2.Rajasekar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.101 of 2017, pending on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Veera Raghavan
For R1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.101 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2016, the second respondent/de-facto complainant tried to fix a motor in the "Common Well"
for the purposes of irrigation purposes. At that time, the petitioners abused filthy language and tried to assault the de-facto complainant. Hence, the de-
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police, a case was registered in Crime No.139 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 294 (b), 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no hit and no one was injured at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that no such occurrence was happened and therefore, Sections, 147, 294(b), 323 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019 and 506(ii) of IPC would not attract for the present case. Hence, all the entire false allegations and charges were framed against the petitioners/accused. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the proceedings.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that after due investigation, the first respondent police laid a charge sheet before the trial court. Both the de-facto complainant and the petitioners are relatives. There was some civil dispute between the petitioners and the de- facto complainant with regard to "common well" before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, in O.S.No.249 of 2016. After completion of enquiry, based on the sufficient materials, the first respondent police laid a charge sheet against the petitioners/accused. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the above criminal original petition.
5.Heard both sides.
6. On perusal of the records, it reveals that there is no victim and no one was sustained injury at the time of alleged occurrence. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that he has mentioned in the FIR is as follows:-
"20.05.2016 k; njjp khiy 03/30 kzpastpy; ehDk; vd; kfd; uh$nrfh; ,UtUk; fpzw;wpy; cs;s jz;zPiu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019 njhl;lj;jpy; gha;rr; ntz;o nkhl;lhh; nghl nghndd;/ mg;nghJ ,ij ghh;jj; uj;jpdK:h;j;jpa[k; mth; kidtpa[k; ,UtUk; nrh;e;J te;J vd;id fPnH js;sp uj;jpdK:h;jj; p fhyhy; vd; ,Lg;gpy; vl;o cijj;jhd;/ mtd; kidtp ifahy; moj;J vj;jid jlit brhy;tJ ,';F tuf;TlhJ vd;W///"/= kw;Wk;
19/07/2016 md;W 11 kzpastpy; fk;g;urh; nkhl;lhh; itf;f ntz;o ehDk; vdJ kidtp uhrhkzp vdJ kr;rhd; jh;kuh$;. ghyfpU!;dd;. re;jpud; kw;Wk; gpll; h;fs; ,Uth; Mfpnahh; bghJ fpzw;wpw;F v';fSf;Fhpa ,lj;jpy; nkhl;lhiu bghUj;j Kw;gl;lnghJ nf/uj;jpdK:h;j;jpapd; kidtp jdyl;Rkp khkpahh; fpll; k;khs; kw;Wk; kfs;fs; ruz;ahnjtp kndhg;hpah Mfpnahh; ehd;F ngUk; nrh;e;Jbfhz;L v';fis fk;u!h; itf;ftplhky; vd;ida[k; vd; kr;rhida[k; vd; kidtpiaa[k; ghh;j;J//////nghd;w bfl;l thh;j;ijfshy; jpl;of;bfhz;L nkhl;lhh; fk;g;u!iu khl;ltplhky; jLj;jnjhL fPnH js;spak[ ; m';nf fple;j ,Uk;g[ uhodhy; kz;ilia cilg;ngd; vd;W fpll; k;khs; vLj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ ehd; tpyfpf;bfhz;nld;/ but the petitioners were charged under Section 323 of IPC without any medical proof. Further more, on seeing the entire records, it is clear that the dispute was arisen due to the fixation of compressor motor.
Subsequently, the Civil suit was also filed for permanent injunction and motor compressor was fixed and as per petitioners submission, now, no water in the well.
7. On perusal of the First Information Report as well as charge sheet, there is no medical records or proof to support the charges laid down under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019 Section 323 of IPC, there is no prime facie case made out against the petitioners at this stage, first petitioner is concerned she is house as far as the second petitioner is concerned, she is aged about more than 81 years and the other petitioners are young girls and the fifth petitioner is aged about more than 65 years, all were suffered by vexatious proceedings, even they asked to withdraw their complaint based upon which case in counter was lodged. That submission also recorded.
8. In view of the above, reasons are justifiable the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.101 of 2017 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.7958 of 2019 is also closed.
26.11.2021 pbl To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Valathy Police Station, Villupuram District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pbl Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2019 26.11.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis