Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4683
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL, J
Beula @ Beula Santhakumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22204 of 2024
For Petitioner:Mr.T.Jeen Joseph For Respondents:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar No. 1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
Vague and omnibus allegations without specific overt acts do not constitute offences under IPC sections, warranting quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioner challenged the charge sheet filed against him in a property dispute case, arguing that the allegations were vague and lacked specific overt acts - The court found that the allegations were indeed bald and omnibus, with no prima facie case established against the petitioner - The court emphasized that possession disputes must be resolved in civil court, and without specific allegations, the petitioner should not face trial - The proceedings were quashed. (Paras 2, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance - The court noted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance without examining the materials properly, which warranted quashing of the proceedings. (Paras 11, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's argument on allegations (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. government advocate's submission (Para 5) |
| 3. court's review of allegations (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. general threat allegations (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. no ingredients to constitute offences (Para 11) |
| 6. proceedings quashed (Para 12) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the STC No. 1190 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a property dispute pending between the parties and as per the case the accused damaged the compound wall and used obscene words and attacked the second respondent with dire consequences. Therefore the second respondent lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 461 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter the first respondent after completing investigation filed final report and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District in STC No. 1190 of 2023 and now the said final report is under challenge.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that based on the false complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 461 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. This petitioner is arrayed as A2 in this case and as per the prosecution case the entire allegations are against A1 and no any specific overt act has been attributed as against this petitioner who is arrayed as A2 and only based on bald and omnibus allegations the present charge sheet has been filed. In order to attract the provisions under , 294(b), 506(i) of there are no ingredients to constitute the offence. However the respondent police filed charge sheet against this petitioner. Further the learned Magistrate without perusing materials taken cognizance and hence the pending charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
4. Though notice served on the second respondent and name printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent.
5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 461 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter the respondent police conducted detailed investigation and as per the investigation there are prima facie materials available as against the petitioner, hence they filed charge sheet and the trial Court also after taking into consideration that there are prima facie materials available to prosecute as against the accused taken cognizance for the offences under , 294(b), 506(i) of , therefore the petitioner has to face the trial, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. In this case based on the complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent registered First Information Report in Crime No. 461 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and thereafter the first respondent conducted investigation and as per the investigation there are prima facie materials, hence they they filed final report as against the accused. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as A2 in this case. According to the petitioner there are no specific allegations attributed as against the petitioner and the allegations are vague, general and omnibus allegations.
8.This Court has perused the records. As per the records the main allegation are as against A1 who is none other than the husband of the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that there is a property dispute pending between the parties. Even as per the First Information Report, there is no any specific overt act attributed as against this petitioner and th
