Allowed

Ravichandran v. State Rep by

Madras HC13 Sept 2023CRL OP/8038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners following a dispute over real estate brokerage. The Court held that the alleged threat was an empty threat failing to satisfy IPC Section 506 and the proceedings constituted an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings in STC No.965 of 2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.

Ravichandran Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.5094 and 5096 of 2023

¶8

1.Ravichandran,

¶9

S/o.Suntharam

¶10

Manojkumar, S/o.Ravichandran

... Petitioners

Vs.

State rep. by

The Inspector of Police, Bhavani Police Station, Erode District.

¶15

Crime No.203 of 2022

¶16

P.Azhakappan, S/o.Perumal

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for records relating to S.T.C.No.965 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Bhavani and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶21

Government Advocate [Crl.Side] [R1]

¶22

Mr.R.Prabakar [R2]

¶23

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

¶24

1/8

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.965 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Bhavani.

¶28

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is a Real Estate broker and the petitioners are said to have approached the second respondent to sell a property. The petitioners also agreed to pay brokerage to the second respondent at the rate of 2%. After the transaction was completed, when the second respondent asked the petitioners for the brokerage, the petitioners are said to have abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and have criminally intimated the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant had initially given a complaint before the respondent Police and since the same was not acted upon, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed before the Judicial Magistrate -I, Bhavani and pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Bhavani, a FIR came to be registered by the first respondent in Cr.No.203 of 2022 on 13.05.2022.

¶29

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

¶30

2/8

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶32

3. The investigation was taken up and ultimately a final report

¶33

came to be filed before the Court below against the petitioners and the same was taken cognizance by the Court below for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. The proceedings before the Court below is the subject matter of challenge in the present quash petition.

¶34

4. Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶35

5. When the FIR was registered on 13.05.2022, the allegations

¶36

made by the second respondent is as follows:

¶37

@mjd ; go fpiuak ; Koj ; j gpd ; g [ nkw ; go nkhfd ; uh$ ; vd ; gth ; fpiuak ; Koj ; j gpd ; g [ v' ; fSf ; F juntz ; oa fkpc&id juKoahJ vd ; Wk ; c'fshy ; ; vd ; d bra ; aKoa [ nkh bra ; J bfhs ; S' ; fs ; vd ; Wk ; kpul ; Lfpwhh ; / nkYk ; k P z ; Lk ; vd ; dplk ; g [ nuhf ; fh ; fkpc&d ; mJ ,Jd ; D te ; jhy ; e P ' ; fs ; ahUk ; capnuhL nghfkhl ; Oh ; fs ; vd ; W bfhiy kpul ; ly ; tpLfpwhh ; / v' ; fSf ; F ju ntz ; oa fkpc&id Vkhw ; Wfpwhh ; / Mifahy ; rK : fk ; mth ; fs ; nkw ; go kndh$ ; Fkhh ; k P J rl ; lg ; go eltof ; if vLj ; J v' ; fSf ; F

¶38

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

¶39

3/8

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶41

nruntz ; oa fkpc&id kndh$ ; FkhhplkpUe ; J bgw ; W jUkhW j' ; fis nfl ; Lf ; bfhs ; fpnwd ; /@

¶42

6. It is clear from the above that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever about abusing or any words used to criminally intimidate the de-facto complainant and the purport of the complaint was to recover the commission/brokerage from the petitioners. The de-facto complainant had thereafter improved the case and while recording Statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.PC, he has stated as follows:

¶43

@ehd ; gthdp lt [ d ; brhf ; fuk ; kd ; efupy ; trpj ; JtUfpnwd ; / ehd ; hpay ; v! ; nll ; g [ nuhf ; fh ; ntiy bra ; J tUfpnwd ; / <nuhL khtl ; lk ; <nuhL tl ; lk ; jpU efh ; fhyzp 2tJ t P jp gk ; gp' ; ! ; nlrd ; nuhL f/vz ; / 21y ; trpf ; Fk ; v! ; /utpr ; re ; jpud ; kfd ; kndh$ ; Fkhh ; vd ; gth ; mtUf ; F gthdp tl ; lk ; gthdp fpuhkk ; u P /r/ 5591 g [ /V/2/45 brd ; l ; ghj ; jpag ; gl ; l brhj ; ij tpw ; gid bra ; J bfhLf ; fr ; brhd ; dhh ; / mjdhy ; ehDk ; kw ; Wk ; vy ; /kzp rz ; Kfk ; Mfpnahhfs ; ; rf ; jp vd ; gtUf ; F 1 brd ; l ; U : gha ; 55000-?f ; F tpiy ngrp Koj ; J xg ; ge ; jk ; nghlg ; gl ; lJ/ v' ; fsJ g [ nuhffu ; ; fkprdhf U : gha ; 100-?f ; F 2% rjt P jk ; ngrp Kof ; fg ; gl ; lJ/ mjd ; go fpiuak ; Koj ; j gpd ; g [ v' ; fSf ; F juntz ; oa fkpc&id utpr ; re ; jpDk ; mtuJ kfDk ; ju KoahJ

¶44

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

¶45

4/8

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶47

vd ; Wk ; c'fshy ; ; vd ; d bra ; a Koa [ nkh bra ; J bfhs ; S' ; fs ; vd ; Wk ; brhd ; dhh ; / mjd ; gpd ; ehd ; utpr ; re ; jpud ; mtuJ kfd ; kndh$ ; Fkhiu gj ; jpu Mg P Rf ; F thU' ; fs ; vJthdhYk ; nee ; J fye ; J ngryhk ; vd brhy ; y mth ; fSk ; rupbad brhd ; dhu ; fs ; / mjd ; gpd ; ehDk ; vdf ; Fj ; bjhpe ; j kzp rz ; Kfk ; Mfpnahh ; fs ; fle ; j 13/10/2021k ; njjp khiy 4/00 kzpf ; F gthdp rhh ; gjpthsh ; mYtyfj ; jpw ; F te ; njhk ; mg ; nghJ ehd ; utpr ; re ; jpud ; kw ; Wk ; mtuJ kfd ; kndh$ ; Fkhhplk ; ,lk ; tpw ; w tifapy ; fkprd ; bfhL' ; fs ; vd nfl ; f mjw ; F utpr ; re ; jpuDk ; mtuJ kfd ; kndh$ ; FkhUk ; jhnahHpfsh g [ nuhf ; fh ; fkpc&d ; mJ ,Jd ; D te ; jhy ; e P ' ; fs ; ahUk ; capnuhL nghf khl ; Oh ; fs ; vd ; W bfhiy kpul ; ly ; tpLj ; jhh ; fs ; / v' ; fSf ; F juntz ; oa fkprid Vkhw ; Wfpwhh ; / rk ; gtj ; jpd ; nghJ utpr ; re ; jpud ; kw ; Wk ; mtuJ kfd ; kndh$ ; Fkhh ; jhd ; ,Ue ; jhh ; fs ; /@

¶48

7. The same has been repeated by other witnesses also, who are

¶49

said to be the friends of the de-facto complainant. It is clear from the

¶50

above that the Police have recorded the statement from the de-facto

¶51

complainant to ensure that the offences made out under Sections 294(b)

¶52

and 506(i) IPC are made out and therefore, the de-facto complainant has

¶53

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

¶54

5/8

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶56

clearly improved his version than what was contained in the complaint.

¶57

That apart, the threat that is said to have exerted is merely an empty

¶58

threat and it does not satisfy the requirements of ingredients under Section 503 of IPC.

¶59

8. In the considered view of this Court, the entire proceedings is an

¶60

abuse process of court, which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in STC.No.965 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Bhavani is hereby quashed.

¶61

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands allowed.

¶62

Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶63

13.09.2023

¶64

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No

¶65

¶66

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

¶67

6/8

¶68

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶69

¶70

1.Th e Judicial Magistrate I, Bhavani.

¶71

2.The Inspector of Police, Bhavani Police Station, Erode District. Crime No.203 of 2022

¶72

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶73

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

¶74

7/8

¶75

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶76

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶77

¶78

Crl.O.P.No.8038 of 2023

¶79

13.09.2023

¶80

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

¶81

8/8

Ravichandran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umapathy Vs R.Nagapavani

Dev Prabhu Vs State Rep. by Its

J.Kamaraj Vs State Rep by

P.S.Pravin Paul Vs Inspector of Police

Ashwini D Vs the State Rep by Its

Annamalai Vs State Rep by