The burden of establishing a claim of private defence rests on the accused, which must be proven at trial rather than through quash petitions.

ORDER

The petition seeks to quash the impugned final report in PRC No.5 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 147, 294 (b), 341 and 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPDDL Act. The petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.1. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by one Senthil Rajan who is the brother's son of the petitioner.

2. The gist of the allegation in the Final Report is that there are certain civil disputes between the petitioner herein and his brother; that in one such case, a retired Judge of this Court Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Dr.S.Vimala was appointed as a Receiver and two lawyers viz., Mr.Siddharthan and Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh, were appointed to assist the learned Judge; that on 22.04.2021, the lawyers appointed as assistants to the learned Judge has sent an e-mail stating that they intend to inspect and value the property in dispute which is said to be in possession of the petitioner herein; that the lawyers along with a few videographers entered into the premises and the petitioner herein had attacked the videographers, caused damage to the cameras besides abusing the lawyers and the videographers in filthy language and caused a total damage of Rs.29,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Only) to the cameras; and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the impugned proceedings are false; that the petitioner had also given a complaint and though the FIR has not been registered, the petitioner had sought for a direction from the learned Judicial Magistrate for registration of FIR, which was dismissed on 18.03.2004 and the petitioner has now challenged the same before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and until the conclusion of the said proceedings, the impugned proceedings cannot continue; that the records would indicate that only two persons were admitted into the premises and the videographers without the permission of the petitioner had trespassed into the property and therefore, the petitioner had exercised his right of private defence; that the fact that only two persons were permitted inside the premises is also admitted by the assisting counsels viz., Mr.M.Siddharthan and Mr.P.Samual Gunasingh in their report dated 01.06.2021, before this Court and therefore, the entry of the videographers which was not permitted and hence, the impugned prosecution, which is attended with malafides is liable to be quashed.

(ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the damage to private properties would also attract the offence under the TNPPDL Act, the allegations must disclose that there was mischief and in this case, the ingredients of mischief are absent, and prayed for quashing.

4. Mr.NR.Elango, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations would attract the offences; that the lawyers who are appointed as assistants to the retired Judge had gone to inspect the property for the purpose of valuation and since they along with the videographers were attacked, the question as to whether the impugned proceedings is false cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition; that the right of private defence cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition, as it is very clear from the Indian Evidence Act, that it is for the person claiming the said right to prove the same in the trial. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the statement of the lawyers recorded by the respondent police, who confirmed the attack on the videographers and the damages caused to the camera.

5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who reiterated the allegations in t