Allowed

Arumuga Pandi v. State by

Madras HC28 Jul 2023CRL OP/16785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner for minor abuse and property damage occurring during municipal work. The court held a full trial was unnecessary due to the minor facts but directed the petitioner to deposit money as compensation for the loss.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.39 of 2023 quashed; Petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Assistant Commissioner.

Arumuga Pandi Vs State by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶7

Arumuga Pandi S/o.Vasagam

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

State by: Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur P.S., Coimbatore City. Crime No.250 of 2017

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for records in S.C.No.39 of 2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court III, Coimbatore City and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramprakash Rajagopal For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

¶20

in S.C.No.39 of 2023 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶21

A complaint was given against the petitioner to the effect that the Coimbatore Corporation was taking steps to dig borewell for the purpose of providing water to the residents and in that process, on 11.04.2017, a borewell was installed in front of the house of the accused by the Contractor, who was engaged by the Coimbatore Corporation. In continuation of the same, some electrical work was done to supply electricity to the borewell. At that point of time, the petitioner is said to have questioned the labourers who were taking the wire and were attempting to fix the meter box near the compound wall of the petitioner. There was some exchange of words and the petitioner is said to have abused them in filthy language, threatened them and had also damaged the wires worth about Rs.1,000/-. Based on the complaint given by the Assistant Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation, a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.250 of 2017. On completion of investigation, a final report has been filed before the Court below and the Court below has taken cognizance of the final report for offences u/s.294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/4

¶24

Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶25

Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992.

¶26

Heard Mr.Ramprakash Rajagopal, learned counsel for petitioner and

¶27

Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

¶28

This Court carefully went through the final report and also the statements recorded from the witnesses. The incident had taken place in the spur of the moment, when some attempt was made to place the meter box near the compound wall of the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have shouted at the labourers. This Court does not find that the abuse that was hurled by the petitioner by itself constitute offences u/s.294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Insofar as the damage to the property which resulted in loss of Rs.1,000/-, this Court can always direct the petitioner to pay the cost. The facts of the present case does not really warrant a full-fledged trial. The facts of the present case can also be

¶29

brought within the scope of Section 95 IPC.

¶30

In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings in S.C.No.39 of

¶31

2023 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court,

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/4

¶34

Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶35

N. ANAND VENKATESH., J gm

¶36

Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Assistant Commissioner, South Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore, within a period of ten (10) days from today.

¶37

This Criminal Original Petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶38

28.07.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral citation : Yes/No gm To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Court III, Coimbatore City.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur P.S., Coimbatore City. Crime No.250 of 2017 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Criminal Original Petition No.16785 of 2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/4

Arumuga Pandi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumuga Pandi v. State by

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

N.Baskar Vs M/S.Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Feroz Vs State Rep by

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ravi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

T.Narayanasami Vs M.R.Palanisami

R.Pandian Vs State Rep by Its