The court emphasized the specific allegations against the petitioner under Section 120B of IPC and the limitation of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in appreciating evidence.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.611 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120 B r/w 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) of IPC.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 120(b), r/w 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) of IPC. The second respondent alleged that on 07.03.2012, on the instructions of the petitioner, four persons came to the second respondent's land and threatened him with dire consequences and try to assault him. He further submitted that the petitioner arrayed as A1 and as against the petitioner, the first respondent filed final report under Section 120(b) of IPC, on the basis of the statement of the second respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), r/w 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) of IPC, and except the statement of the second respondent no other witnesses whispered about the conspiracy of the petitioner along with other accused persons.

2.1. He further submitted that on 07.03.2012, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in respect of other crimes. He further submitted that to attract the offence under Section 120B of IPC, there is absolutely no evidence except the hearsay evidence that the petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy to cause criminal intimidation. The hearsay evidence does not constitute an offence under Section 120B r/w 506(ii) of IPC, as the conversation was merely about the second respondent's land and not a conspiracy for the alleged offences.

2.2. He further submitted that the first respondent did not even follow the Prison Rule 541 and falsely implicated the petitioner as an accused as if, on his instructions the other accused persons have committed the crime. He also relied upon the following judgments:

(i) (2008) 10 SCC 394 - Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra

(ii) (2011) 2 SCC 532 - Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and anr

(iii) (2014) 10 SCC 264 - Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

(iv) (2000) 1 SCC 378 - Saju Vs. State of Kerala.

Hence he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant filed counter and submitted that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was remanded in prison because he is an habitual offender and specifically in the land related matters and threatening, blackmailing the original owners and grabbing the properties belonging to them. The petitioner involved in so many cases and in fact, at the time of occurrence, he was remanded judicial custody in respect of Crime No.27 of 2011 for the offence committed by him under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 427, 307 & 506(ii) and 409 & 420 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. Only on his instructions, the other accused persons are committed the present offence. Therefore, the present quash petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter of the first respondent and submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No.79 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) of IPC, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.611 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 120(b), 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) of IPC. There are evidences to attract the offence under Section 120B of IPC as against the petitioner and all the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for dism