Criminal proceedings may be quashed where the final report fails to prima facie establish the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly when the dispute is primarily civil in nature and the prosecution materials are insufficient to support specific charges.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present petition arises out of a village property dispute which has spilled over into a criminal prosecution. The petitioner seeks quashment of the final report which now survives only for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) BNS. The original complaint appears to have been much wider, involving several accused and several offences, but the final report has been restricted to the aforesaid two offences.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The second respondent/de facto complainant claims that he had purchased the disputed property in the year 2005. According to him, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner and others entered the church premises, questioned the de facto complainant, abused him in obscene language, threatened him and caused hurt.

3. The complaint initially appears to have alleged that nearly eleven persons were involved in the occurrence. However, during investigation, the police deleted several persons and also dropped some of the offences originally mentioned in the FIR. Ultimately, the final report has been filed only against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) BNS. The prosecution would rely upon the complaint, witness statements and the alleged CCTV footage to contend that the petitioner had entered the church premises, abused the de facto complainant in obscene words and caused bodily pain to him.

Grounds for Quash:

4. The petitioner contends that the prosecution is a counter-blast to the earlier complaint lodged by him. According to the petitioner, his father and family members are the true owners of the property in Survey No.236/1 at Vadagarai Village and the civil dispute is already pending in O.S.No.223 of 2013 before the Munsif Court, Tirumangalam.

5. It is the petitioner’s case that the second respondent had purchased the property from one Parvatham, who had no title over the property. The petitioner’s side had erected a flex board outside the property, and the second respondent removed the same. When the petitioner questioned the removal, he was allegedly attacked by the de facto complainant and others. The petitioner further submits that he was admitted in the hospital and his statement was recorded by the police, resulting in registration of Crime No.467 of 2024 against the second respondent and his father. Only thereafter, the present counter-complaint was lodged.

6. It is also contended that though the complaint alleged involvement of eleven persons, the statements of witnesses do not support such an allegation. On the contrary, the witnesses allegedly state that only the petitioner was present and that there was only a scuffle. As regards Section 296(b) BNS, the petitioner contends that the final report does not disclose the exact obscene words, the element of public annoyance, or the requirement that the alleged act was committed in a public place.

7. As regards Section 115(2) BNS, it is submitted that there is no material to show voluntary causing of hurt. No witness speaks about bodily pain suffered by the de facto complainant, and the medical materials do not establish any injury caused by the petitioner.

Arguments on either side:

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire criminal prosecution is rooted in a civil dispute. The disputed property is the subject matter of O.S.No.223 of 2013, and the criminal case has been given a colour of penal prosecution only to pressurise the petitioner’s family. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was the real victim of the occurrence. He was admitted in the hospital and treated for two days. His complaint was registered first, and the present case is only a counter-case lodged subsequently.

9. It was argued that the prosecution version is inherently doubtful, since the complaint speaks about eleven persons, whereas the witness statements do not support such a case. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution’s own materials substantially demolish the