Allowed¶50

K.Makudamudi v. D.Mani

Madras HC25 Mar 2025CRL OP/17038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC quashes C.C.No.23 of 2024 (JM-II Kallakurichi) — private complaint under S.200 CrPC for Ss.120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC — as abuse of process and vexatious litigation cloaking a civil educational-trust dispute; S.528 BNSS quashing petition allowed; S.200 cognizance faulted for ignoring attending circumstances; trusteeship of Dr. R.K. Shanmugam Educational Trust earlier settled in civil courts (O.S.942/2000, A.S.16/2004, S.A.347/2013) and by G.O.s.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.P.Nos.10254 of 2024 and 4577 of 2025) closed. ¶50

K.Makudamudi Vs D.Mani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 23 of 2024 (offences under Sections 120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) r/w Section 34 IPC) constitute an abuse of process / vexatious litigation and are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶17-18

Court's answer

On a perusal of the entire record, this Court holds that the present complaint constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's attempt to re-litigate issues already resolved in civil courts amounts to vexatious litigation; the respondent has attempted to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal offence although the matter ended in favour of the petitioners.

¶7

Key takeaways

The petitioners were duly recognised as trustees after all legal challenges were exhausted.ratio¶7
The respondent is pursuing the complaint with the intent of wreaking vengeance for past grievances.ratio¶43-44
The complaint, filed after a period of 23 years, lacks the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences as alleged.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; reserved 20.03.2025, pronounced 25.03.2025) — Crl.O.P.No.17038 of 2024: Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash C.C.No.23 of 2024 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi), a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC charging Sections 120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) r/w Section 34 IPC over alleged 1996–1999 confinement, coercion and execution of deeds relating to the 'Dr. R.K. Shanmugam Educational Trust'. Held: the complaint is a clear abuse of process and vexatious re-litigation of trusteeship disputes conclusively resolved against the complainant (O.S.No.942 of 2000; A.S.No.16 of 2004 confirmed 24.08.2006; S.A.No.347 of 2013 dismissed 09.01.2015; G.O.Ms.No.318 dt.16.11.2001 and G.O.(1D) No.29 dt.03.02.2005), filed about 23 years after the events with intent of wreaking vengeance and lacking the ingredients of the alleged offences; the Trial Court erroneously took cognizance without considering attending circumstances beyond the complaint averments. Entire proceedings quashed; petition allowed; connected Crl.M.Ps. closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 20.03.2025 Pronounced on : 25.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17038 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10254 of 2024 and 4577 of 2025

¶7

1.Dr.K.Makudamudi 2.K.P.R.Balakrishnan 3.Dr.D.Manivannan

¶8

4.Dr.P.Thirugnanasamantham

¶9

5.Dr.G.S.Kumar ... Petitioners Vs.

¶10

D.Mani ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Kallakurichi and to quash the same.

¶12

Page 1 of 10

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Thilagan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.

¶18

23 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kallakurichi.

¶19

2 . Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this

¶20

Court.

¶21

On the complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 200 of

¶22

the Criminal Procedure Code, the Trial Court has taken cognizance in C.C. No. 23 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC as against the accused persons. The respondent and his wife alleged that

¶23

Page 2 of 10

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶26

they were subjected to a life-threatening situation and were unlawfully confined for an entire night, during which they were coerced into executing certain documents. The respondent’s school-going children were also confined to their house in Chennai. It was further alleged that under such duress, the respondent and his wife executed the deeds. The respondent further claimed that, prior to his resignation from the trusteeship, as per the resolution dated 13.10.1999, he and his wife were removed from their positions as trustees. The respondent also contended that the Education Trust, namely “Dr. R.K. Shanmugam Educational Trust”, in which he and his wife acted as the Founders and Managing trustees, had unlawfully removed them from trusteeship and mismanaged the Trust's affairs.

¶27

The trust in question was established in 1996, where the respondent and his wife contributed land to the Trust as part of its formation. The respondent, on 01.07.1996, executed a settlement deed transferring ownership of 10 acres of land to the Trust. Subsequently, a supplementary deed of trust was executed on 21.06.1999, which included

¶28

Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶30

the accused persons as trustees. The respondent’s wife resigned from her position on 22.06.1999 and the respondent himself resigned on 13.10.1999. Following their resignation, the respondent and his wife were removed from the trusteeship and the accused continued managing the trust. It was alleged that after their resignation, the respondent and his wife attempted to interfere in the trust's functioning, failed to surrender audited reports and attempted to obstruct the administration of the Trust. The Managing Trustee filed a suit in O.S. No. 942 of 2000 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the respondent and his wife to deliver the audited accounts and restraining them from interfering in the trust’s administration.

¶31

The suit was decided in favour of the petitioners and the respondent’s contention was rejected by the Trial Court. The respondent’s subsequent appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 2004 was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Kallakurichi and the appeal was confirmed by judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006. The second appeal filed by the

¶32

Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶34

respondent in S.A. No. 347 of 2013 was dismissed by this Court on 09.01.2015, further confirming the respondent’s removal from the trusteeship. The respondent also challenged the Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.318, Higher Education Department, dated 16.11.2001) accepting the removal of the respondent and his wife from trusteeship and recognizing the petitioners as the rightful trustees. The respondent’s writ petition in W.P. No. 28120 of 2004 was disposed of with directions to consider their representation, however, the Government passed a fresh order in G.O. (1D) No. 29 dated 03.02.2005, confirming the removal of the respondent and his wife as trustees.

¶35

After failing in the civil suits and proceedings, the respondent filed a partition suit in O.S. No. 39 of 2006 for a share in the trust’s property in the name of his son. The suit was decreed. Despite the respondent’s consistent legal defeat, he approached the Tahsildar for the transfer of patta, which was later reversed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and this decision was upheld by the District Revenue Officer in 2019. Subsequently, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Police

¶36

Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶38

(Special Land Grab Cell, Kallakurichi) based on the very same set of allegations. This complaint was investigated and subsequently closed. The respondent filed a direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 10783 of 2014, which was dismissed by recording the submission that the complaint had been closed after enquiry. Despite multiple adverse judgments against him and the closure of his previous complaints, the respondent filed the present private complaint, based on identical

¶39

allegations, which led to the issuance of summons by the Trial Court.

¶40

After a perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the view that the present complaint constitutes a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioners were duly recognized as trustees after all legal challenges were exhausted. The respondent’s attempt to re-litigate the same issues, which have already been resolved in civil courts, amounts to vexatious litigation. The respondent has attempted to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal offence, despite the matter having ended in favour of the petitioners.

¶41

Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶43

It is evident that the respondent is pursuing this complaint with

¶44

the intent of wreaking vengeance for past grievances. The complaint, filed after a period of 23 years, lacks the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences as alleged. Therefore, it would be sufficient for the Trial Court to examine the averments made in the complaint to ascertain whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed therein. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. Unfortunately, the Trial Court, without due consideration of the surrounding circumstances, has erroneously taken cognizance of the matter for the offences under Sections 120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC and issued summons.

¶45

In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C. No. 23 of 2024

¶46

cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire

¶47

Page 7 of 10

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶50

proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2024 is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

25.03.2025

¶52

Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No shk

¶53

Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶55

¶56

1.Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Kallakurichi

¶57

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶58

Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Crl.O.P.No. 17038 of 2024

¶60

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶61

shk

¶62

Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.No.17038 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10254 of 2024 and 4577 of 2025

¶63

25.03.2025

¶64

Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Taking of cognizance in C.C. No. 23 of 2024 on the respondent's private complaint under Section 200 CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 342, 385, 406, 420, 506(2) r/w Section 34 IPC against the accused persons, followed by issuance of summons.¶22
Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kallakurichi
Prior proceeding
Managing Trustee filed suit O.S. No. 942 of 2000 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi seeking mandatory injunction for delivery of audited accounts and restraining interference in trust administration.¶30
Prior proceeding
Suit decided in favour of the petitioners; respondent's appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 2004 dismissed by the Sub Court, Kallakurichi and confirmed by judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006.¶31
Prior proceeding
Respondent's second appeal in S.A. No. 347 of 2013 dismissed by this Court on 09.01.2015, further confirming his removal from the trusteeship.¶34
Prior proceeding
Government Order G.O.Ms.No.318, Higher Education Department, dated 16.11.2001 accepted the removal of the respondent and his wife from trusteeship and recognised the petitioners as rightful trustees; respondent challenged it.¶34
Prior proceeding
Writ petition W.P. No. 28120 of 2004 disposed of with directions to consider representation; Government thereafter passed fresh order G.O. (1D) No. 29 dated 03.02.2005 confirming removal of respondent and his wife as trustees.¶34
Prior proceeding
Partition suit O.S. No. 39 of 2006 filed in the name of the respondent's son for a share in the trust property was decreed.¶35
Prior proceeding
Patta transfer obtained from the Tahsildar was reversed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that decision was upheld by the District Revenue Officer in 2019.¶35
Prior proceeding
Complaint lodged with the Police (Special Land Grab Cell, Kallakurichi) on the same allegations was investigated and closed.¶38
Prior proceeding
Direction petition Crl.O.P. No. 10783 of 2014 filed before this Court was dismissed, recording the submission that the complaint had been closed after enquiry.¶38
Prior proceeding
Despite multiple adverse judgments and closure of previous complaints, the respondent filed the present private complaint on identical allegations, leading the Trial Court to issue summons.¶39

K.Makudamudi v. D.Mani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Makudamudi v. D.Mani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kesavan, Vs the Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Thasildhar

Gouse Basha Vs State Rep.by

K.Narayanasamy Vs State Rep by

Ravichandran Vs the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Muthukumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandrakumar Vs Inspector of Police