Criminal proceedings are not be quashed under Section 528 BNSS when the complaint and final report prima facie disclose the ingredients of alleged offences, as disputed questions of fact regarding motive, civil vs. criminal intent, and evidentiary proof are reserved for trial rather than summary adjudication.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present Criminal Original Petition seeks quashment of the proceedings in S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, arising out of Crime No.114 of 2023 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) IPC.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/de facto complainant is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of 13 cents of land comprised in Survey No.60/11 situated at Vembanoor Village, Kanyakumari District.

3. According to the prosecution, on account of a dispute relating to the said property, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 are alleged to have entered upon the disputed portion, caused damage to the boundary/compound structure of the de facto complainant’s property for the purpose of forming or facilitating a road, and thereby caused damage.

4. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant questioned the petitioners regarding the said act, the petitioners abused him in filthy language, damaged the boundary structure and criminally intimidated him with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.114 of 2023 dated 15.08.2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(i) IPC. After investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance as S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

Grounds for Quash:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present prosecution is nothing but a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner on 14.08.2023 at about 18.30 hours against the de facto complainant and his relatives, for which CSR No. 422 of 2023 was issued. It was further contended that the final report does not disclose any specific overt act as against each of the petitioners and that all the accused have been mechanically roped in.

6. As regards Section 427 IPC, it was submitted that though the prosecution alleges damage, there is no valuation certificate or competent material to establish the alleged damage. Therefore, the offence of mischief causing damage is not made out.

7. As regards Section 294(b) IPC, it was contended that the alleged abusive words do not satisfy the statutory requirement of obscenity and that there is no material to show annoyance to the public.

8. As regards Section 506(i) IPC, it was submitted that the alleged threat was not real, immediate or capable of causing alarm. The complaint was lodged after nearly 12 hours and therefore the allegation of criminal intimidation is artificial and exaggerated.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the prosecution has been initiated only to give a criminal colour to a civil/property dispute. According to him, the materials collected during investigation do not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 294(b), 427 or 506(i) IPC. He would submit that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the de facto complainant is the lawful owner of the property and that the petitioners, without permission, entered upon the property and damaged the boundary structure. He submitted that the occurrence is not a mere civil dispute, but involves abusive words, damage to property and criminal intimidation.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the final report is supported by witness statements and materials collected during investigation. He submitted that the abusive words have been stated in the prosecution materials, that the damage to the boundary has been noticed, and that the threat with an iron rod attracts Section 506(i) IPC.

12. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

13. The