BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Date : 17/03/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD). No.20320 of 2022 and Crl.MP.(MD).Nos.14073 & 14075 of 2022 C.Selvaraj ..Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai.

Crime No.1943/2020

2. Thillai Chidamparam @ Senthil ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in STC.No.4527 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, in connection with Crime No.1943 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Govt., Advocate (Crl.Side) – For R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in STC.No.4527 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives residing in the same village. Due to pending property dispute between them, the petitioner allegedly went to the workplace of the defacto complainant in an inebriated state, assaulted him, and criminally intimidated him. Consequently, an FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed a final report for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) of the IPC, and the same was taken on file as S.T.C.No.4527 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai. The petitioner has now filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.4527 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the allegations made in the FIR and the final report are taken to be true, no offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC is made out. Further, insofar as the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, there is no incriminating material available on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 4527 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai. He placed reliance on the judgment in Beri Manoj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 641.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that it is not necessary to examine medical witnesses to prove the injuries when there are eye-witnesses available to speak about the injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner. He further submitted that the case of the the petitioner does not fall under any of the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case.

5. Notice was sent to the defacto complainant; however, there was no representation on his behalf. Though the cause list indicates that notice to the defacto complainant was unserved, this Court has perused the records relating to service of summons through Court as well as private notice.

6. This Court heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. A reading of the final report indicates that there exists a dispute relating to the land, as well as the mutation of records pertaining to the said land. In view of the said dispute, according to the prosecution, the petitioner is alleged to have gone to the workplace of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated and assaulted him. This Court finds that there are no material ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC. It is well-settled law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed in a number of cases, that mere criminal intimidation without any further overtact does not constitute the offence. Insofar as the allegation of assault is concerned, there are no materials available on record to show that any injury was caused. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the injuries, mere intimidat