Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50999
PETITION FOR QUASH Under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
Prayer:- To call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent in S.C.No.16/2022, on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, Thoothukudi District and to quash the same.
CRL.OP(MD)No.6231 of 2023:
Latha ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Ettayapuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.36/2022)
2.Rajendran ...Respondents
For Petitioner: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar
Additional Public Prosecutor – for R-1
M/s.A.Victoria -For R-2
PETITION FOR DIRECTION Under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :- To direct the Learned Special Court for the trial of Cases under SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, Thoothukudi to dispose the case in SC.No:16 of 2022 within stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Victoria
For the Respondents: E. Antony Sahaya Prabakar, S.C. Herold Singh, F.X. Eugene
High Courts should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings that are maliciously instituted or lack essential ingredients of the alleged offences, especially when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and the prosecution is used as a tool for harassment.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 354A, 503, 506(2) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Inherent power of High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court - Allegations of land dispute and wordy quarrel cannot be elevated to criminal offenses without distinct ingredients - (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charge sheet - Where allegations in first information report or complaint do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers should quash such proceeding to prevent abuse of process of Court and secure ends of justice. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed following a dispute over agricultural land previously sold under multiple transactions. The complainant alleged that the accused party attempted to forcibly vacate the premises, used defamatory language targeting the caste of the complainant, and committed acts of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The accused sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the dispute was purely civil in nature, that the parties involved belonged to the same community, and that the allegations lacked the necessary legal ingredients to sustain the criminal charges.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the incident took place in an agricultural field where no third-party witnesses were present, failing the 'public view' requirement for several sections of the special legislation. Further, evidence relating to sexual harassment and intimidation was found to be unsubstantiated, and the property dispute was confirmed to be governed by valid sale deeds and mutation records.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused should be quashed as an abuse of the process of law, given the civil nature of the underlying property dispute and the lack of essential ingredients for the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: When a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted for wreaking vengeance due to private grievances, and the allegations made do not disclose the necessary elements of the offences charged, it constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court, under its inherent powers, must thwart such attempts to convert civil disputes into criminal prosecutions.
Result: Criminal original petition for quashing the charge sheet allowed; petition for direction to expedite trial dismissed as redundant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the property dispute and criminal complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. absence of offences under section 294(b) ipc due to lack of public view. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. absence of sexual harassment ingredients under section 354a ipc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. criminal intimidation under section 506(ii) ipc requires specific intent lacking in civil disputes. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. sc/st act does not apply when parties belong to the same community. (Para 13) |
| 6. high court's power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
COMMON ORDER
Both the petitions are pertaining to the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.16/2022, hence both the petitions are taken together and a common order is passed.
2.(i). The Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2666/2023 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the impugned charge sheet filed in S.C.No.16/2022 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, Thoothukudi District.
2.(ii) The in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6231/2023 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the Special Court for the Trial of Cases under SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, Thoothukudi to dispose the case in SC.No.16 of 2022 within stipulated time fixed by this Court.
3.(i). The brief facts of the case as stated by the defacto complainant Latha are that in the year 2008, the husband of the defacto complainant purchased lands from one Chandra Leela wife of Joseph comprised in Survey Nos. 143/11, 12, 1A 1B, 2A, 2B, measuring an extent of 5 acres and 34 cents, situated at Thippanoothu Village, Chinnamalaikundru, Ettayapuram Taluk, Thoothukudi District. When the defacto complainant was in need of money for her son’s education, they approached one Karuppasamy who demanded to execute a deed for the loan, hence the defacto complainant's husband executed a sale deed instead of mortgage deed in Doc.No. 2863 of 2008 dated 17.10.2008 after receiving Rs.1,30,000/-. The said sale deed was executed only for the purpose of security. Further the house in the said land was not given as security, but the land alone was given as security. Even after the sale deed, the petitioner and her husband were doing cultivation and was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter the said Karuppasamy demanded repayment, which the petitioner could not repay the amount. The said Karuppasamy deliberately sold the property to one Rajendran son of Palaisamy after receiving Rs.1,30,000/- and the said Rajendran is the 1st accused. The 2nd and 3rd accused are the children of the 1st accused. When the petitioner approached the said persons, it was informed that after paying the said amount, the property would be transferred in the defacto complainant name, hence permitted the defacto complainant and her husband to continue cultivating the land. Subsequently the defacto complainant approached the 1st accused to return the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest but the accused refused to receive the amount and refused to execute sale deed in favour of her husband as agreed by them. The value of the property is several lakhs, hence the said Karuppasamy in order to cheat the petitioner had sold to the said Rajendran / 1st accused for Rs.1,30,000/-. The 1st accused in a habitual offender and several cases are pending against him. The contention of the defacto complainant is that the 1st accused along with his sons who are the 2nd and 3rd accused in order to vacate the land had created forged documents and threaten the defacto complainant. On 30.01.2022 the accused persons came with rowdy elements in car as well as two wheelers and trespassed into the property while the defacto complainant was in her house and uttered filthy languages against her caste who belongs to ST community and damaged the front door and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, a complaint has been registered against the accused in Crime No.36 of 2022 for the offences under sections 294(b), 506(2), 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(ii
