Madras High Court
Negomiya vs The State Represented By on 10 February, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 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.3316 of 2016
and
CRL.M.P(MD).No.1685 of 2016
1.Negomiya
2.Ketsiyal Deva Selvi
3.Eroniya ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
TVMCH Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.176 of 2015)
2.Amalan ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records relating to the FIR in Crime No.
176/2015 on the file of first respondent police 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 No.176 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC on the file of the respondent police. http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 2016
2.The petitioners are accused persons in the above said crime number. On complaint given by one Amalan, a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC. Against which, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint.
3.The facts of the case briefly are stated hereunder:
(i) The second respondent, who is a practicing Advocate and he was running his office in the first floor of the petitioner's premises. The said property was purchased by the second petitioner's husband. The petitioners decided to demolish the building and wanted to reconstruct the same. Therefore, they instructed the second respondent to vacate the premises. But, the second respondent refused to vacate the same. Due to which, there was some dispute between them.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent is an Advocate, who had created documents showing that prior to the purchase of the property, the tenancy agreement has been entered and he had been refusing to vacate the premises and demanding ransom. Therefore, the second 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 under Sections 427, 294(b), 323, 506 (i) IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 2016
5.Therefore, the said Amalan being an advocate threatened the petitioners that they would be implicated in other cases, if his demand of ransom is not paid. Despite the said Amalan had vacated the premises and had kept the room in lock and making false allegations that the bundles and articles kept inside the room were damaged, destroyed by the mischief of the petitioners. Therefore, the said Amalan had given a false complaint against the petitioners on 07.11.2015, for which a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 has been filed, for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(i) IPC. By non stopping it, the said Amalan had given another complaint in Crime No.11 of 2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 (NH), 341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC @ 457, 380(NH), 341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Later, the case was closed as 'mistake of fact. Thus the petitioners have been falsely implicated in furtherance, the said Amalan had civil dispute with 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 and poured waste water, causing damage and obstructed 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 3/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 2016
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been foisted the above case to wreck vengeance for a civil dispute and it would amount to an abuse of process of law.
8.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is an Advocate, practicing at Tirunelveli Subordinate Courts. As per the rental agreement, the second respondent is paying monthly rent without any default through the Bank and also paid a for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance.
9.According to the Advocate, he is a tenant and he has been paying regularly the tenancy upto October 2015 and the petitioners, who were running a Hotel in the ground floor below in the tenancy portion of the said Advocate and purchased the property and that there was some civil dispute. Since the investigation, in this case stayed.
10.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent. Admittedly, the said Murugan employed as part time job under the Amalan. Further, it is admitted fact that the Advocate vacated the premises and running his office at another place. The said Murugan is attending Advocate's office in the building of the petitioner does http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 2016 not arise. Further, except for the empty threat, there has been no other action furtherance.
11.It is seen that the civil dispute has been given criminal color. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash this petition.
12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.176 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
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 5/6 CRL.OP(MD)No.3316 of 2016 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
das CRL.O.P.(MD).No.3316 of 2016 and CRL.M.P(MD).No.1685 of 2016 10.02.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6