The court ruled that criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes constitute an abuse of legal process, quashing the charge under the special statute while retaining specific IPC allegations for trial.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is intended to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, and only when the complaint/charge sheet, even if taken at face value, does not disclose the commission of any offence, or when the proceedings are demonstrably vexatious, mala fide, or legally untenable.

2. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.195 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, arising out of Crime No.565 of 2012, registered for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter “TNPPDL Act”).

Facts in brief:

3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the final report and the materials placed, is that the second respondent/de facto complainant, stated to be the Chairman of Kalaiyarkovil Panchayat Union, was running a stone workshop in Survey No. 197/14A1 at Mettupatti, Kalaiyarkovil, for several years, allegedly on lease from one Mrs. Agnes Marry. It is alleged that on 29.09.2012 at about 06.30 p.m., the petitioners (A1 and A2) and others trespassed into the workshop, damaged certain movables such as office shed/table/chair/showcase causing loss said to be Rs.10,000/-, used obscene words, and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. It is also alleged that other accused threatened with sticks. On the complaint said to have been given on 22.09.2012, the first respondent police registered Crime No.565 of 2012 and filed the charge sheet on 05.11.2012. The petitioners contend that the charge sheet was not taken on file at that point, and that only after about 11 years, summons were received in C.C.No.195 of 2023.

Case of the petitioners:

4. The petitioners submit that they are husband and wife, both teachers, and that the second petitioner purchased the subject property in Survey Nos.197/14A1 (3177 sq.ft.) and 197/25 (1077 sq.ft.) by a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2010 (Doc. No. 4629/2010) from Mrs. Agnes Marry, for construction of a house, and that patta stands in the name of the second petitioner. According to them, the dispute is essentially a property dispute, the de facto complainant is only an alleged lessee, the criminal case is a pressure tactic, and an enquiry by higher officials (referred to as an ADSP report) contains observations adverse to the de facto complainant.

5. It is further stated that the de facto complainant had filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed and withdrew the same on 10.07.2014, and therefore the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process. The petitioners further urge that the long delay in the matter being taken on file and summons being issued violates their right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that Section 3 of TNPPDL Act is not attracted on the allegations.

Grounds:

6. The impugned proceedings arise out of a predominantly civil dispute relating to immovable property, which has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure on the petitioners. Even on a plain reading of the charge sheet, the essentia