IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.2150 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18425 of 2025 S.K.Boopalan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police E-1, Ponneri Police Station Ponneri, Tiruvallur District

2. N.Koteeswaran Arulraj ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.795 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, pending on the file of the 1st respondent/Inspector of Police, E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Prabu For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.B.Raja for R2

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.795 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023, pending on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(I) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the de facto complainant/2nd respondent is that by obtaining loan of Rs.45 lakhs, he is running a water bottling company in the premises situated in Survey No.208/8, owned by the petitioner/accused. The lease agreement is for 20 years to be renewed every 5 years. After expiry of 5 years, since the petitioner did not come forward to renew the agreement, the de facto complainant had requested him several times to renew the same, however, the petitioner did not extend the lease. Hence, the de facto complainant/2nd respondent had approached the Court and obtained an order of injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner started a business in his son’s name viz. Sunil Aqua and registered a document as if, the said premises had been given for 10 years lease. When the de facto complainant questioned the same, the petitioner abused him by calling with his caste name and stated that the other community people will not drink the water filled by the de facto complainant and also threatened to kill the de facto complainant and his family members if he does not vacate the premises. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police on 15.10.2025. Since the first respondent police had not taken any action, he approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and filed a complaint in Crl.M.P.No.5577 of 2023 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by order dated 27.11.2023, directed the first respondent police to register an FIR, based on which, the first respondent registered the above FIR. The present petition has been filed by the accused/petitioner to quash the FIR.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. After expiry of 5 years of lease period, the petitioner had asked the de facto complainant to vacate the premises, whereas the de facto complainant approached the Court and obtained an order of injunction and hence, there was a dispute between them. While so, in order to harass the petitioner, he has lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. He would further submit that even taking into consideration the entire allegations to be true, the alleged offences cannot be made out as against the petitioner. Even as per the complaint, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place within the factory premises and not in the public view and that there were no other persons who watched the incident. Therefore, continuing the case against the petitioner, is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in (2023) 17 SCC 615 and Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarkhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first r