ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.44 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent who an employee of C.Krishniah Chetty &

Company Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short) is the complainant. The 1stpetitioner is said to be the Director of the Company and the 2ndpetitioner who is also the wife of the 1stpetitioner is the employee of the Company. On 21-01-2023 it appears that one Vinod Hayagriv files an injunction suit in O.S.No.1265 of 2023 against the 1st petitioner to restrain the petitioner from making any changes, construction of walls, partition and other structures that restrict all round movement of people and vehicles around the building. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 28-03-2023, grants an interim injunction against all the parties. After obtaining the interim order, the averment in the petition is that, on 07-04-2023 Vinod Hayagriv attempted to construct a wall to seal the gate of the petitioners. It is thereafter, the dispute between the two arose and appears to have gone amiss. It is alleged that on 29-04-2023 the petitioners, when the employees of Vinod Hayagriv attempted to interfere with the petitioners’ property, are said to have indulged in fight both verbal and physical as also using pepper spray. It is said to have been used as a defence by the petitioners. Upon the said incident, the 2nd respondent, employee of the Company, is said to have registered a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.44 of 2023. The moment the crime is registered, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.A. Ahmed, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners were forced to use pepper spray in their defence and that is protected under Section

100 of the IPC. They had to do so on account of the 2nd respondent and other security personnel attempted to interfere with the petitioners’ property and the 2nd petitioner has injured her knee and, therefore, the petitioners too registered a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.43 of 2023. The said crime is said to be under investigation. The following day, the impugned crime comes to be registered. The complainant is one of the employees/security guard who is said to have been injured by the petitioners. Learned senior counsel would submit that if the complaint is registered on mala fides, it must not be permitted to be investigated into, as it would run completely contrary to law as laid down by the Apex court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v.

BHAJAN LAL1.

5. Per-contra, the learned senior counsel representing 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions of the petitioners to contend that a clear case of ingredients of the provisions invoked in the case at hand are made out. He would submit that power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

the Cr.P.C. or even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used. It is his submission that right to private defence has been misused in the case at hand, as there was no threat or danger to the life of the petitioners, but pepper spray is used only to cause injury to the complainant and others. He would submit that pepper spray is a dangerous weapon which would clearly come within the ingredients of Section 324 of the IPC.

6. In reply to the said submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that for invoking Section 341 of the IPC, it must be proved that the complainant faced obstruction from all direction. For invoking Section 427 of the IPC the accused m