BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1702 & 1703 & 4028 of 2024

1.Duraiarasan

2.Archunan

3.Singaraj

4.Karthik @ Karthik ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.3 of 2022

2. Naganathan

3.Pothumponnu 4.Soundararajan

5.Muthuramu 6.Kalaiselvan

7.Bagavat Singh

8.Krishnan ... Respondents (R3 to R8 are impleaded as per order of this Court dated 27.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.

(MD)No.4028 of 2024.)

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned charge sheet in S.C No. 48 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District court, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same as illegal so far as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Balamuruga Pandi For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate Mr.Ramasamy for Mr.S.Ramakrishnan (R2)

ORDER

The petitioners seek for quash of the proceedings in S.C No. 48 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on a complaint received from the second respondent, an FIR in Crime No.3 of 2022 came to be registered by the respondent police as against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 295 and 505(2) of IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 and the same culminated in laying charge sheet in S.C No. 48 of 2023 for the same offence on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioner seeks quash of the impugned charge sheet, they are ready to limit their prayer only with respect to the offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, for which he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4120 of 2022 dated 18.08.2022, wherein this Court has held that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, cannot be made applicable to the damage caused to the properties in dispute between the two private parties.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police categorically submitted that the mandate of the aforesaid case will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In this case, Mulaikottai Thinnai, situated in natham land at S.No.331 of Vallam Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapram District, which is claimed by two community people is the subject matter of dispute, in which one of the community people belonging to the petitioners have demolished the platform therein by using a JCB and hence, obviously that cannot be a dispute between two private persons, but between two community people. The same would attract the terminology 'public' and sought for dismissal of this petition.

5. The argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police was adopted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners categorically contended that the same is not a government property and that since it is a private property, the same is necessarily to be quashed.

7. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police relied upon an order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.869 of 2022 dated 08.06.2023 and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:-

“2. The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.5 of 2020 dated 11.07.2022, on the file fo the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and they said to have committed the offences under Sections 147, 447, 448, 506(1) IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act. Pending the said case, the petitioners