BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6585 of 2024 and CRL.MP(MD). Nos.4989 and 4991 of 2024 Sudhakar ... Petitioner / Accused No.1 -Vs-

1.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.42 of 2023. ...1^st Respondent / Complainant

2.Pitchaiyammal ...2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., To call for the entire records connection of case in C.C.No.263 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar Advocate For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No Appearance

ORDER

The petitioner seeks to quash the final report in C.C No.263 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 506(i) of IPC and Section

4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.

2. The gist of the allegation in the impugned final report is that the defacto complainant was running an idly shop near the petitioner’s house; that on 01.02.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioner had entered into a wordy altercation with the defacto complainant, caused damage to the utensils in the shop and also attacked the defacto complainant with hands and legs and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned prosecution is an abuse of process of law; that the defacto complainant was a tenant under the petitioner and had vacated the premises in the year 2021; that thereafter, she was running an idly shop in front of the petitioner’s property, causing nuisance; that when the petitioner requested the defacto complainant to remove the shop, the present FIR, which culminated in the impugned final report, was lodged; that the allegations are attended with mala fides; that there is no evidence to suggest that the defacto complainant had sustained any injury and therefore, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is not made out; that the offence under Section 427 of IPC is also not attracted, as admittedly the defacto complainant was running the idly stall on the street; and consequently, the other offences alleged are also not made out. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and another v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition; that apart from the defacto complainant, there are two eyewitnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution; that merely because the victim had not subjected herself to medical examination, it cannot be said that the accusation is false; and that therefore, this petition may be dismissed.

5. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent has entered appearance, there was no representation on 31.10.2025. Even today, there is no representation for the second respondent. Therefore, this Court is inclined to decide the case on merits, on the basis of the available records.

6. It is seen from the records that the defacto complainant was originally a tenant under the petitioner's father and that she vacated the premises in the year 2021. Thereafter, she was running an idly shop near the house of the petitioner. Though it is alleged in the FIR as well as in the final report that the defacto complainant sustained injuries, there is absolutely no medical record to substantiate the same. It is further seen that the eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution are closely related to the defacto complainant. There appears to be prior enmity between the