IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

CRL.O.P.No.473 of 2017

and

Crl.MP.Nos.347 & 348 of 2017

Fowzunnissa

...Petitioner

.Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police,

G-1 Town West Police Station,

Uthgamandalam,

Nilgiris District.

2. Ms.Praveena

The Sub Inspector of Police,

G-1 Town West Police Station,

Uthagamandalam,

Nilgiris District.

3. C.Parthiban

4. Prathap

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records

comprised, in STC No.2850 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court Uthagamandalam to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohamed Habeeb Raja

For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan

Government Advocate for R 1

No Appearance for R 2 to R 4

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking

to quash the proceedings in STC No.2850 of 2016, on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthagamandalam.

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

2.The 3^rd respondent gave a complaint before the

respondent police against the petitioner and the same resulted

in registration of an FIR in Crime No.258 of 2016, for an

offense under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. On completion of

the investigation, a final report was also filed before the

Court below and the same has been taken on file in STC No.2850

of 2016, for an offense under Section 294 (b) IPC against the

petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was abused and attacked by the 3^rd and 4^th

respondents and she sustained injuries and she gave a complaint

against them based on which, an FIR came to be registered in

Crime No.257 of 2016, for an offense under Section 294(b) and

323 of IPC. As a counter blast, a false complaint came to be

given against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent and without

any application of mind, an FIR was registered by the respondent

police. The learned counsel submitted that instead of taking

action against the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, the respondent police

have filed a final report against the petitioner for an offense

under section 294(b) of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that

the proceedings before the court below is an abuse of process of

court which requires the interference of this court.

4. Heard Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate

appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The 3^rd and 4^th

respondents have been served notice and their names have also

been printed in the cause list and they did not appear either in

person or through counsel.

5. There is a property dispute between the petitioner

and the 3rd respondent. The compliant given by the 3^rd respondent

is that the petitioner abused the 3^rd respondent and has given a

false complaint against him. There is absolutely no material to

substantiate the offense under section 294(b) of IPC. To

constitute an offense under Section 294(b) IPC, the petitioner

should have abused the 3rd respondent in or near any public

place and caused annoyance to the 3^rd respondent. There is

nothing to show that the incident took place in a public place.

That apart, it is seen that the subsequent complaint given by

the 3rd respondent is only a counter blast to the earlier

complaint given by the petitioner.

6.

In the considered view of this Court, the

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an

abuse of process of court and the same requires the interference

of this court. Accordingly, the proceedings in STC No.2850 of

2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,

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

Uthagamandalam, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original

Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar(CS IV