The TNPPDL Act, 1992 is applicable to offenses involving damage to property. The defense of alibi should be proved during trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the impugned Final report No.222 of 2014 dated 07.01.2015 filed by the 1st respondent in PRC.No.59 of 2019, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-V, Coimbatore and quash the same and pass such further order.0

1. The petitioner herein arrayed as 2nd accused in P.R.C.No.59 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-V, Coimbatore, seeking quash of the final report.

2. The brief facts of the case is that one, Mr.Thangavel informed the respondent police on 22.11.2014 that three sons of Chinnasamy trespassed into his land with JCB and demolished the building which is under construction. Hence, case was registered in Crime No.589 of 2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (herein after referred as “TNPPDL Act 1992”) as against three sons of Chinnasamy and Section 294(b), 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 against the wife of Chinnasamy.

3. After completion of investigation, filed report filed and same was taken on file under P.R.C.No.14 of 2018. The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 2nd accused shown as absconding accused, case against him was split up and numbered as P.R.C.No.59 of 2019.

4. In the quash petition, it is contended that, there was a property dispute between the defacto complainant and the family members of the petitioner. Mr.Chinnasamy, father of the petitioner gave power of attorney to the defacto complainant in respect of the property measuring one acre and later died. The petitioner herein, after his father demise, misusing the power of attorney deed, the defacto complainant trying to grab the property in this regard. Suit was filed by Chinnasamy, however same was dismissed, on his demise. Thereafter, fresh suit has been filed by the petitioner's mother who is the 4th accused and suit in O.S.No.1025 of 2013 is pending on the file of 1st Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore. While so, in the disputed land, alleging that, the construction put up by the defacto complainant was demolished on the evening of 21.11.2014, a complaint was lodged and same has been taken up for investigation and final report filed with truncated facts.

5. According to the petitioner, the alleged act of demolishing the construction of the defacto complainant will not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, since the damage was not committed during procession, assembly, meeting and other similar activates. Further, he would also contend that alleged time of occurrence, the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence, in fact, was in UAE.

6. In view of this Court, the ground raised by the petitioner that provision of TNPPDL Act, 1992 will not get attracted for the above said offence is per se untenable.

Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, reads as below:-

3. Punishment for committing mischief in respect of [property]. - Whoever,-

(i) Commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any [property] and thereby causes damage or loss to such [property] to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards; or

(ii) commits mischief by doing any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water to the public or to any person for any purpose or an inundation of, or obstruction to, any public drainage, or

(iii) commits mischief by doing any act which renders any public road, bridge, navigable channel, natural or artificial impassable or less safe for traveling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine:

Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.

7. On reading of the provision, it is clear that, it is not necessary that damage to the public property should