IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.04.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.8483 of 2023 Thangasekar @ Sekar, S/o. Thangavel, No.62A, Nethaji Road, Villupuram – 605 602.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector Of Police Villupuram West, Villupuram District.

(Crime No.429 of 2021)

2. Rasenndiran, S/o.Subramaniam, No.5/4, 7^th Cross Street, Muthuvel Layout, Villupuram.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.408 of 2021 under Section 294(b) & 506(2) of IPC on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram District and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sankar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.S.Sathish for R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.408 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, thereby taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had previous enmity with the defacto complainant regarding the encroachment in Muthuvel layout due to that, on 20.08.2021 around 11 p.m., when the defacto complainant and his family standing inside their compound wall, the petitioner abused the defeacto complaint with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequence. The defacto complainant had also recorded the same in his cell phone. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and on receipt of the same, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.429 of 2021 as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.408 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner. To quash the said proceedings the petitioner filed the present petition.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.429 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.408 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.

Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has five previous cases and hence he prayed to dismiss the present petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is the sole accused. There are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Further, the petitioner is a notorious criminal and he has five previous cases.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in

2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section

161 of Cr.P.C.

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme C