Allowed

Thiruvengadam, Aged 67 Years v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Dec 2021CRL OP/28539/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Criminal Case No.157 of 2017 holding prosecution an abuse of process of law. A prior civil decree in favor of petitioners established ownership/acquisition of property by purchase in 1965, negating trespass or unlawful assembly claims.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No.157 of 2017 pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee is quashed; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Thiruvengadam, Aged 67 Years Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17/12/2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.28539 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.16172 AND 16173 OF 2017

¶6

1. Thiruvengadam
2. Suguna
3. Kothandam
4. Mageswari
5. Poongavanam
6. Ramesh
7. Sobhana
8. Rajendran
9. Thukkaram
10. Gajendiran
11. Perumal
12. Kaliyaperumal
13. Radhabai	... Petitioners
.Vs.
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Valathy Police Station,
Valathy, Villupuram District.
2. Sankar	... Respondents
PRAYER:-

¶7

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.157 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 Notice sent – Service awaited For R2

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.157 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District.

¶12

The crux of the charge is that out of nine cents of poramboke land, the first accused has obtained patta to three cents from the Tahsildar. However, the public has objected for the same. On 4/6/2017, the second respondent and his hooligans had entered into the first petitioner's property and abused them. Hence the first petitioner has given complaint to the first respondent Police and the same was registered in Crime No.165 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent. There is no representation for the second respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law. There is a civil decree in favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.601 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif, Ginjee, wherein the defacto complainant was the first defendant. It is his further contention that Civil Court has found that the accused is the owner of the property. When the Civil Court decree is operated against the defendants, the defacto complainant and others joined together and filed a false case and then the entire statements recorded upon by the prosecution do not constitute any offence. Hence prayed for quashing the final report.

¶15

There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.

¶16

At the outset, this Court finds that the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law. No doubt, the Civil Court decree passed against the defendants in O.S.No.601 of 2016. The defacto complainant in this case is none other than the first defendant in the above suit and one of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution is also some of the defendants in the previous suit. The prosecution has proceeded as if the property is a temple property or Government property. Accused has tried to encroach upon the property, whereas the Civil Court decree clearly indicate that the property was purchased in the year 1965 and declaration is granted in their favour and therefore, the accused going to their property cannot be considered as a trespass or unlawful assembly. The entire

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

statements relied upon by the prosecution even do not constitute any offence. Accordingly, final report is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is quashed.

¶19

In the result, this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.157 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District is quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

mvs.

¶25

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District.

¶27

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valathy Police Station, Valathy, Villupuram District.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

CRL.O.P.NO.28539 OF 2017

¶30

CP(CO) PBS/05/01/2022

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Thiruvengadam, Aged 67 Years v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvengadam, Aged 67 Years v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudra Bahadur Chhetry, Vs the State Represented by

M. Elaya Perumal 34 Yrs Vs M. Sathyavani

Mahendra Shanmuganathan Vs Sree Srinivasa Constructions

Tamil @ Tamizharasan Vs the State Rep. by

Ramachandran, M/71 Years Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum

Subrata Paul. M/51 Vs P. Vadivelu, M/62