BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.13562 & 13563 of 2025 M.Kalaivani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station.

(FIR in Crime No.65 of 2024)

2.Malarkodi ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.40 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai District and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivalagan For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.Balasubramanian

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.40 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai District, filed against the petitioner/A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that, on account of prior enmity, on 09.02.2024 at about 10:00 a.m., the petitioner, along with three others, entered the agricultural land belonging to the second respondent/defacto complainant with a JCB; that while the second respondent/defacto complainant questioned them about the same, the petitioner and the other accused attacked the second respondent/defacto complainant with sticks and also threatened her with an aruval, and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law; that the petitioner has a physically challenged child, and due to the proceedings, the said child would suffer irreparable hardship; that the second respondent/defacto complainant and her husband have encroached upon the land used by the villagers as a pathway, and all the villagers are against the second respondent/defacto complainant and have also made representations to the authorities to remove the encroachment made by the second respondent/defacto complainant; that in order to wreak vengeance, the second respondent/defacto complainant lodged an FIR against the petitioner and the other accused, which culminated in the impugned final report; that the allegations would not constitute any of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; that the allegations in the FIR and the final report pertain only to the manner in which the alleged occurrence took place; and that the petitioner has been implicated in this case because his father had filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD) No.708 of 2024 before this Court seeking action for removal of the encroachment, which is still pending.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent police, would submit that the points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and cannot be adjudicated in this quash petition, and sought for dismissal of this quash petition.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner and others attacked the second respondent/defacto complainant with sticks, causing simple injuries; that the filing of the Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner's father against the encroachers cannot be considered a ground for quashing the final report, which has been filed after due investigation; and that the mere filing of the PIL and mere giving representation to the authorities to remove the encroachment would not mean that the petitioner did not commit any of the offences, and hence, sought for dismissal of this petition

6. The allegation in the final report is that the petitioner, along with others, attacked the second respondent/defacto complainant with sticks and thereafter threatened her with an aruval. The petitioner's father had filed a Public Interes