Criminal proceedings arising from property disputes, where allegations are vague and omnibus, constitute an abuse of process of law and should be quashed when the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Prologue:

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.240 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, seek quashment of the final report laid for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii) and 427 IPC, corresponding broadly to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 296(b), 351(3) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.12.2014, at about 5.00 a.m., the petitioners along with other accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the property claimed by the second respondent/de facto complainant in R.S.No. 201/2 of Kavoorkonam, Arumanai, and damaged 85 rubber trees said to be worth Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. It is further alleged that when the second respondent questioned the accused, they abused him in filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences and left the place. On this foundation, the respondent police laid a final report against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

Grounds for quash:

4. The petitioners contend that they have been falsely implicated in a purely civil dispute relating to title and possession over the property comprised in Old S.No.2302, corresponding to New R.S.Nos.201/2 and 202/2 of Arumanai Village. According to the petitioners, the property originally belonged to two Nair Tarwads, namely Kavukonathu Veedu and Pottikanathu Kunju Veedu. Their predecessor-in-title had acquired rights in the property, and thereafter the petitioners’ father, Maruthu Nayagam, filed O.S.No. 447 of 1973 for redemption of mortgage before the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

5. It is stated that a preliminary decree was passed on 31.07.1976 and, in A.S.No.124 of 1978, the learned Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai, partly allowed the appeal on 26.08.1978 and allotted 1/3^rd share in the entire extent of Old S.No.2302, corresponding to New R.S.Nos.201/2 and 202/2, in favour of the petitioners’ father.

6. It is further submitted that a final decree was drawn on 21.09.1990 in I.A.No.1454 of 1986 in O.S.No.447 of 1973 and delivery was taken in E.P.No.97 of 2002 on 27.10.2011. The petitioners would further submit that the suit filed by one Narayanan Nair, from whom the second respondent claims to have purchased the property, in O.S.No.42 of 2004, was dismissed on 04.12.2012.

7. The petitioners also rely upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10095 of 2012, granting police protection to their predecessor. It is their specific case that after suffering adverse orders in civil proceedings, the second respondent has set up a sale deed and settlement deed and has now given a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

8. The petitioners further submit that the original investigation was referred as mistake of fact in R.C.No.43 of 2016 and only pursuant to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, fresh enquiry was conducted and the present charge sheet was laid.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution is a malicious continuation of the long-standing civil dispute between the parties. It was contended that the question of title and possession had already been adjudicated in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor and delivery of possession had also been effected through court process.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that the second respondent, who claims under Narayanan Nair, cannot assert a better title than his vendor, particularly when the suit filed by Narayanan Nair was dismissed and when delivery had already been taken by the petitioners’ predecessor.

11. It was next contended that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus. Even as per the prosecution version, the petitioners were not alleged to have actively cut or damaged the rubber trees. The only allegation is that they were waiting on the