Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.400 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Srivaikundam and quash the same in respect of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 herein.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Aju Tagore

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.400 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam, arising out of Crime No.231 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. The petitioners also seek dispensation of their personal appearance and interim protection pending disposal of the proceedings.

2. The case presents a classic instance of a case and counter-case emerging from a familial property dispute, where both sides have suffered injuries and charge sheets have been filed in respect of the same occurrence.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to long-standing animosity relating to ancestral property, the petitioners allegedly trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant on 10.08.2021 at about 12.00 noon, abused the complainant’s husband and son in obscene language, voluntarily caused hurt, and criminally intimidated them.

4. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, FIR in Crime No.231 of 2021 was registered. Investigation culminated in filing of a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

5. During the same transaction, the third petitioner lodged a counter-complaint, which was registered as Crime No.230 of 2021 alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Both cases were investigated by the same Investigating Officer and charge sheets were filed. One accused in the counter case, being a juvenile, was dealt with separately before the Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi.

Grounds for quash:

6. The petitioners contend that the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed on the following grounds:

(i) The occurrence is a single transaction giving rise to a case and counter-case; both charge sheets were mechanically filed without identifying the real aggressor.

(ii) The investigation violates settled principles governing cross cases and Police Standing Orders requiring fair assessment of the genesis of the occurrence.

(iii) Medical evidence contradicts the prosecution allegations, particularly the alleged overt act attributed to the first petitioner.

(iv) Admission of guilt by the juvenile in the counter case demonstrates that the defacto complainant’s party was the aggressor.

(v) Continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process and causes undue hardship.

Arguments on either side:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is rooted in ancestral property and residential occupation, where both sides have equal entitlement. The quarrel was mutual and resulted in injuries on both sides. It is argued that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with established procedure governing case and counter-case situations and mechanically filed final reports in both cases.

8. The learned counsel highlights inconsistencies between medical records and the allegations, especially the absence of injuries supporting the specific overt act attributed to the first petitioner. It is further submitted that the juvenile’s admission of guilt in the counter case establishes that the complainant’s party initiated the aggression. The petitioners seek quashment, or alternatively dispensation of personal appearance.

9. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant contends that the prosecution is supported by medical evidence and witness statements showing injuries to the complainant’s family. It is argued that issues o