Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Selvakumar and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State, rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station and Anr. - Respondents
Crl.O.P. No.4930 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. No.3578 of 2024
Decided On : 27-03-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz.
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The FIR was quashed as it lacked merit, with the court finding no evidence of ownership or criminal acts by the petitioners.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 427, 447, and 506(ii) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of trespass, damage, and criminal intimidation were found to lack merit as the complainant was not in possession of the property and no evidence supported the claims - The FIR was deemed an abuse of process of law. (Paras 8-13)
(B) Criminal Trespass - To invoke Section 447, there must be criminal trespass into the possession of another's property - Since the complainant was not the owner, the offence was not attracted. (Para 8)
(C) Obscene Acts - For Section 294(b) to apply, there must be utterance of words that annoy others - No evidence was presented to support this claim. (Paras 9-10)
(D) Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(ii) requires an act in pursuance of a threat - Mere threats without action do not constitute an offence. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of trespassing and damaging property belonging to the complainant, who claimed ownership based on an oral partition. The petitioners contended that the complainant had no title over the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complainant was not in possession of the property and that the FIR was filed with malicious intent.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the property and the validity of the allegations made in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was an abuse of process, as the complainant lacked ownership and evidence to support her claims.
Result: FIR quashed.
ORDER :
(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.70 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that de-facto complainant resides and engaged in agricultural activities at Door No. 1/193, Vasanthapuram, Namakkal District, and also owns an ancestral property in Vasanthapuram. The de-facto complainant and her husband's brother, one Mr. Kalimuthu, had entered into an oral partition and both are enjoying their respective portions in the ancestral property. As per the oral partition, Kalimuthu was allotted two tiled-roof houses, while the de-facto complainant was allotted two tiled-roof houses . Adjacent to her house was a small storeroom, where she stored her lorry's engine and parts. While being so, on 23.01.2024, at 8:30 p.m., the petitioners, along with four others, trespassed into her property, using a JCB to damage the storeroom. The complainant confronted them and the petitioners abused her and threatened her. They also stolen the lorry's engine and parts, valued at Rs. 3.5 lakhs. An FIR was registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 70 of 2024 under sections 294(b), 427, 447, and 506(ii) IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 201/7A, 202/7B, and 202/6 originally belonged to one Kaliammal, the aunt of the first petitioner's father, Kalimuthu, and one Palanisamy, the husband of the second respondent. The said properties were purchased by them through a sale deed dated 30.01.1974. Thereafter, a partition deed was executed on 27.03.1995, whereby half share in the property was allotted to Kaliammal and the other half share to Palanisamy. It is further submitted that on 29.03.2010, Kaliammal executed a power of attorney in favor of the first petitioner. Acting under the authority of the power of attorney, the first petitioner executed a sale deed in favor of the second petitioner on 07.04.2011. Simultaneously, the second respondent and her two sons, Gopinath and Premnath, executed sale deeds on 12.07.2017 in favor of Vijay Kumar and Loganathan, vide Document Nos. 1791 and 1792 of 2017. After the purchase, Loganathan executed a ¼ share to Vijay Kumar through a sale deed dated 06.09.2022. Following the purchase, the second petitioner and Vijay Kumar entered into a partition deed, wherein “A” schedule of the property was allotted to the second petitioner.
4. The learned counsel further submits that, in an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property already sold by the second respondent, the second respondent has attempted to unlawfully interfere with the second petitioner’s possession. Consequently, the second petitioner was compelled to file a suit in O.S. No. 23 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, against the second respondent and her two sons, which is currently pending for adjudication. Thereafter, the second respondent lodged a complaint, falsely claiming title over the property and alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the property.
5. Though notice was served on the second respondent, no one appeared before this Court, either through video conferencing or in person.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the allegations in the FIR are serious in nature and warrant investigation. The nature of the offences alleged under Sections 294(b), 427, 447, and 506(ii) IPC requires a detailed examination. Therefore, the matter may be referred for further enquiry and appropriate action.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
8. On perusal of records, it is evident that the second petitioner, who is the wife of the first petitioner, is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The second respondent, however, is not in possession of the property. As per the partition deed and the sale d
