ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani in CMP No.2101 of 2022 in C.C.No.28 of 022, dated 22.08.2022.

2. The fact of the case is that on 30.09.2021, at about 12.05 hours, for cement plastering on the house of the petitioner/defacto complainant, she along with her daughter arranged Hollow Block stones in front of their house. At that time, at the instigation of Periyasamy @ Marasamy, the accused persons, namely, Muniappan, Sarasu, Boomathi, Ramayee, raised quarrel with the defacto complainant and her daughter, in which, they assaulted the defacto complainant as well as her daughter Valarmathi, thereby caused serious injuries to them. They have also damaged the window of the defacto complainant's house and CCTV camera. Since the petitioner and her daughter sustained injuries, they were admitted in the hospital for treatment, where, the respondent police recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and registered a case in Crime No.383 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 324 & 427 of IPC on 01.10.2021. After investigation, the respondent police filed the final report as against Muniappan, Sarasu and Poomathi, and the same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Bhavani in C.C.No.28 of

2022. Since the respondent police dropped the accused, viz., Ramayee and Marasamy in the final report, the petitioner had filed a petition in CMP No.2101 of 2022 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and sought to implead the dropped accused as accused persons to face trial along with the other accused and also to frame charge against them for the offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition on the ground that petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for adding the accused persons at pre-trial stage is not permissible and only after recording the evidence alone maintainable. To support his reasoning, the Trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh /vs/ State of Punjab (2014(3) SCC 92). The Trial Court also rejected the prayer for framing charges under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act as the dispute is between the private parties and the properties alleged to have been damaged by the accused are only private properties and only ordinary mischief has been made out and placed reliance in the order of this Court in Logu @ Loganathan /vs/ State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur in Crl.A.(MD) No.273 of 2008, dated

27.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the records and the statement of the main persons and had not properly considered the scope, mode and powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C and not properly considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh /vs/ State of Punjab (2014(3) SCC 92). He further submitted that Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 is applicable even to the damage of the private properties. The accused damaging the properties of the defacto complainant, will be covered under the term "other activities" as stated in the amended Act 1994. Thus, pleaded to set aside the impugned order and reiterated the other grounds stated in the petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) justifying the order passed by the Trial Court contended that there is no sufficient reason for interfering in the impugned order and pleaded to dismiss the criminal original petition as it has no merit.

6. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

7. In the present Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner challenged the impugned order in C.M.P.No.2101 of 2022 in C.C.No.28 of 2022 on the file of t