This Court quashed criminal proceedings in a special telecom case under Section 482 CrPC. The bench held the dispute was purely civil in nature and the proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance.
Proceedings in STC.No.21 of 2019 and connected miscellaneous petitions are hereby quashed and closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 14421 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 5500 and 5501 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the charge sheet filed in S.T.C.No.21 of 2019
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Bhavani, Erode District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents For R1 : Mr. A.Gopinanth Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : No appearance.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in STC.No.21 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Bhavani, Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
Zahir Hussain in respect of property. While being so, on 25.07.2018, the
petitioners trespassed to the land belongs to the said Zahir Hussain and prevented the persons who were constructed the building. That apart, they also damaged some portion of the land. They also scolded the 2nd respondent in filthy languages and attacked him by their hands. They also threatened him with dire consequences.
Page 3 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
and willing to repay the amount which was borrowed by them, it was refused and cheated the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to issued legal notice on 22.01.2018. Thereby, they call upon the said Zahir Hussain and Shakila Banu to cancel the sale deed on receipt of the amount which was borrowed by them by way of Demand Draft. However, they failed to cancel the sale deed and forcibly taken possession of the subject property on the strength of the sale deed. Therefore, the petitioners filed a Suit in O.S.No.7 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Bhavani, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 08.01.2018 is null and void. The said property is measuring to an extent of 2.77 acres worth about nearly Rs.50 lakhs. Infact, on the influence of the Inspector of Police one Mr.Kumaravel, the said Zahir Hussain had taken forcible possession of the property from the petitioners. Infact, the petitioners also have filed petition seeking police protection in Crl.O.P.No.8220 of 2018 before this Court.
2018 in O.S.N.7 of 2018 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Bhavani and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before this Court in C.M.A.No.1797 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
2018 in which by order dated 16.08.2018, this Court ordered status quo to be maintained in respect of the said property by the petitioners and the said Shakila Banu. For the similar set of allegations, the said Zahir Hussain and Shakila Banu through their servants lodged a complaint and the same was registered with the influence of the 1st respondent in Crime Nos.103 of 2018, 205 and 300 of 2018 against the petitioners and also against the daughters of the petitioners. Infact, the 2nd petitioner also lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent and others which was registered in Crime No.204 of 2018 and the same is pending without any progress. Whereas, the counter complaint, registered in Crime No.205 of 2018 against the petitioners was investigated and final report has been filed by the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
together and committed the offence. Further observed that, thought the case of the prosecution that the 1st accused entered into an agreement for sale with one Sakthivel and received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as advance and after receipt of sale consideration from Shakila Banu, A1 repaid the amount to the said Sakthivel. Therefore, involvement of the Sakthivel in this case is spoken by P.W. 3 to 6 and therefore, it cannot be said that Sakthivel is not a material evidence in respect of the money transaction. That apart, the petitioners were paid Rs.13,01,000/- by way of Demand Draft after deducting first month interest to be payable by the Shakila Banu and the same was not encashed by the petitioners immediately. The said demand draft was returned to her and call upon her to execute the cancellation of the sale deed. The original sale deed was deposited in the suit and therefore no sale consideration was passed to the petitioners.
the property and threatened the person who were working in the subject land ended in acquittal. Therefore, the said complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and all the allegations are civil in nature and no offence is made out as against the petitioner.
Page 6 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
in nature and no criminal intimidation as alleged by the 2nd respondent herein. The entire complaint is totally malafide with an intention to ulterior motive to wreck the vengeance. Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and is liable to quash.
"102..........
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Page 7 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
9.
proceedings in STC.No.21 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Bhavani, Erode District is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.06.2022
Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order
nr/sma
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.14421 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. nr/sma
CRL.O.P.No. 14421 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 5500 and 5501 of 2020
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising from a property dispute, alleged to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, are liable to be quashed under inherent jurisdiction.
Whether the allegations amount to criminal conspiracy and intimidation or are merely civil disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bajanlal v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶43
Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, (1992) SCC Crl. 426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Vijayarajan
H.M.Maheswari
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station
A.Govindaraj
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Parties & counsel
