Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2636
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
V.Jeyabharathi - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.4189 and 4192 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3305, 3306, 3309 & 3310 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Sricharan Rengarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.V.Karthick Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kumaravel
The absence of accused at the scene does not exonerate them from charges of abetment if evidence indicates participation in planning or instigating the crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, and 307 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Accused challenged their inclusion in the proceedings for abetment related to an attack on an Advocate - The court noted the role of community influence in obstructing justice and determined the evidence supported ongoing prosecution. (Para 23)
(B) Abetment - Legal standard - A person may not be absolved of blame merely due to absence at the scene if involvement in planning or instigation is established - The burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate non-involvement. (Paras 13-15)
Facts of the case:
The defacto complainant, an Advocate, was attacked following a protracted civil dispute involving property ownership, connected with the accused who exerted dominance in the area to obstruct lawful execution.
Findings of Court:
Evidence indicated a systematic plan to attack the defacto complainant to undermine his legal actions on behalf of his clients and perpetuate wrongful possession of property.
Issues: The principal issue revolved around the adequacy of evidence to justify the charge of abetment against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned the absence from the scene does not exempt the accused from liability for abetting acts of violence planned in conjunction with others, emphasizing the legal necessity for each participant's accountability.
Result: Criminal Original Petitions dismissed; trial to proceed expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property settlement and historical claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. impact of societal power dynamics. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. defense against allegations of abetment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. continuing obstruction of legal proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. justice for the victimized advocate. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4189 of 2024 is filed by A4 and Crl.O.P. (MD).No.4192 of 2024 is filed by A3, A5, A6 and A7 to quash S.C.No. 47 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2.Since both petitions filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.47 of 2024 and the grounds raised are identical, a common order is passed.
3.The brief facts of the case is that one Veerapillai of Athalur Village, Peravoorani Taluk owned lands and he had no issues, hence he settled his properties in favour of his sister sons Chinnayapillai, Rengasamy Pillai, Marimuthu Pillai and Iyyakannu Pillai. Totally there are 42 properties which were settled to the above persons by Document No.41 of 1925. Chinnayapillai and Rengasamypillai settled with Pattukottai properties, Marimuthupillai and Iyyakannu Pillai settled with Athalur properties.
4.An extent of 20 cents in S.No.218/3 at Palaniyappan Nagar, Pattukottai was divided and shared between Chinnayapillai and Rengasamypillai of 10 cents each. Chinnayapillai and his wife Sundarathachi had no issues. Chinnayapillai died in the year 1943 and Sundarathachi sold 10 cents of land at Palaniyappan Nagar to K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar on 01.07.1949 vide Document No. 2088/1949. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17.06.1956. Prior to 17.06.1956, female members of a family can only enjoy the family property but have no right to alienate the property. Hence, the brothers of Chinnayapillai, namely, Iyyakannu Pillai and others filed a suit in O.S.No.251 of 1950 before the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai seeking declaration of sale executed by Sundarathachi dated 01.07.1949 vide Document No.2088/1949 as void. Thereafter the suit was transferred from Pattukottai to the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and re-numbered as O.S.No.410 of 1950. The suit was decreed in favour of Iyyakannu Pillai and others on 28.11.1952. Sundarathachi, wife of Chinnayapillai died on 10.03.1962.
5.Rengasamy Pillai died in the year 1954 and his wife Alamelu Achi sold her 10 cents to Manickam Chettiyar on 14.05.1960 vide Document No.1170/1962 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
6.As regards the property sold by Alamelu Achi, wife of Rengasamy Pillai to Manickam Chettiyar, the said Manickam Chettiyar filed a civil suit in O.S.No.132 of 1969 before the Sub Court, Thanjavur for declaration to declare him as the owner of the property on the basis of sale deed. The said suit was dismissed on 13.09.1971, against which he filed an appeal before the High Court, Madras in A.S.No.369 of 1972 and the same was dismissed on 01.12.1975.
7.Iyyakannu Pillai died in the year 1962 and his son Muthusamy Pillai and others filed a civil suit in O.S.No.64 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukottai against the said K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar seeking for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed in favour of Muthusamy Pillai on 27.04.1970. Against which, the said K.O.K.Vaithiyanathan Chettiyar filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.613 of 1970 before the High Court, Madras. The High Court dismissed the appeal suit by judgment dated 29.04.1976.
8.Based on the decree, Muthusamy Pillai and others filed execution petitions in E.P.Nos.50 & 51 of 1988 for delivery of possession and the same dismissed on the ground of delay and limitation. Against which, C.R.P.Nos.2954 and 2955 of 1986 filed and this Court by order dated 19.11.1996 allowed the Civil Revision Petitions. Before passing of orders in the Civil Revision Petitions, the said Muthusamy Pillai died and his sons, Veeramani and Selvaraj stepped in as leg
