Advocates:
['M/S R GANESAN', '', 'R MURUGA BHARATHI-MS', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'N JOTHI', 'N PRASHANTHA RAO', 'SMA MOHAMMED FAIZ MOHIDEEN', 'K GAUTHAMAN', 'M/S M GOVINDARAJU']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.O.P.No.16753 of 2019

and

Crl.M.P.No.8420 of 2019

S.Vinayak

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The state rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Nagapattinam Town Police Station,

Nagapattinam.

2.Elavarasi

...Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in

the Sessions Case No.152 of 2018 on the file of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District,

quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Vijayakumar

for Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi

For R1

:

Mr.N.S.Suganthan

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2

:

Mr.M.Govindaraju

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash

S.C. No.152 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District, quash the same.

2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.110

of 2018, which is now taken on the file and pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.152 of

2018.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The sum and substance of the complaint against this

petitioner is that he trespassed into the property of the

defacto complainant where a public school is functioning and

damaged the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, whereas in the petition

to quash the case, the petitioner claims that there is a civil

dispute regarding the property in T.S No.435/1 and the identity

of the said property is the subject matter in O.S.No.174 of

1986. In this connection, the petitioner had put up a compound

wall within his property, which was objected by the defacto

complainant and henchmen and the said compound wall was pulled

down by the defacto complainant on 26.03.2017. To cover up this

action, a false and frivolous complaint has been lodged against

him, which was taken for investigation in Crime No. 145 of 2017

for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of

IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, 1984.

4. In the petition to quash, it is contended that

ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out. There is a

persistent dispute between the defacto complainant and the

petitioner. Civil suits, Criminal case and petition before the

Human Rights Commission are pending. To wreck vengeance, without

any evidence, a case has been registered against him for the

alleged offence under Section 3(1) of PPDL Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant would submit that the petitioner herein after

damaging the statue of Mahatma Gandhi also intimidating the

defacto complainant with dire consequences. After due

investigation, final report has been filed and the same is taken

on the file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nagapattinam. The petitioner filed petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C before this Court to quash the complaint, has also filed

application to discharge before the trial Court to discharge and

the same pending. The prosecution has collected enough oral and

documentary evidence implicating the petitioner herein for the

offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3

(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the first respondent, states that the

Investigating Officer, after appropriate investigation has

completed the investigation and filed the final report recording

the statement of witnesses.

7. Considering the material available and placed before

this Court, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case

for quash, since prima facie material is available to proceed

against the peti