Prosecution must prove ownership and secure necessary sanction for charges under relevant IPC sections; failure to do so results in dismissal.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2022 in S.C.No.152 of 2018, thereby dismissing the petition to discharge the petitioner from all the charges.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26.03.2017 the petitioner had trespassed into the defacto complainant's school viz., National Elementary School situated at Pudareegakulam, Vadakarai, Nagapattinam District and caused damage to the Mahatma Gandhi statue situated within the school premises. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.145 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the TNPPDL Act”). After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.152 of 2018. While the case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed petition to discharge him from all the charges. It was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the present revision.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that now the respondent filed final report as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. No charges have been made out as against the petitioner as per the material produced by the prosecution. The Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is with regard to public property since it is a central Act. Admittedly, the subject property which is allegedly damaged by the petitioner is a private property and it does not belong to any government. Therefore, the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is not attracted as against the petitioner.

3.1. He further submitted that in order to prosecute the petitioner for the charge under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, the prosecution ought to have obtained sanction even before the filing of the final report. Admittedly, in the case on hand the respondent did not obtain any sanction to prosecute petitioner for the charges under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC. In order to attract the charge under Section 448 of IPC, the property must be owned by the defacto complainant. But the subject property was owned by the petitioner herein and he obtained decree of injunction as against the defacto complainant long back and the same was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, there is no question of trespass and the charge under Section 448 of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioner. The subject land belongs to the petitioner and as such he is free to remove all the obstructions in his land in a lawful manner. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution has no legs to stand further and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be punished for any charges.

3.2. He also submitted that for the very same occurrence the petitioner also lodged complaint as against the defacto complainant and the same has been registered in Crime No.156 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. Without even following procedure laid down under Section 588A of the Police Standing order, the respondent filed final report only as against the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated as against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) W.P.No.2508 of 2016 dated 16.02