Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4421 of 2025

1. Ravichandran

2. Vasudhevan

3. Ganesh Babu

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Sub Inspector of Police,

Town North Police Station,

Dindigul Taluk,

Dindigul District.

Crime No.84/2007

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. N.Vanji Muthu .... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned charge sheet in

C.C.No.68 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Dindigul and quash the same in so far petitioners are considered.

1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

For Petitioners: Mrs. M.Benazir Begum

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.V.Janakiramulu

ORDER

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition presents yet another

instance where a long-drawn civil, statutory and possessory dispute

concerning an immovable property has travelled into the criminal

court in the form of allegations of theft of movable articles. The Court

is, therefore, required to carefully separate what properly belongs to

the realm of civil adjudication from what can legitimately constitute a

criminal prosecution. The petitioners seek quashment of the

proceedings in C.C.No.68 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, for the alleged offences under

Sections 380 and 414 IPC.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The prosecution case is that the second respondent/de facto

complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent police,

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

pursuant to which Crime No.84 of 2007 was registered on

19.01.2007 for the offence under Section 380 IPC.

3. According to the de facto complainant, on 11.08.2003, he

had purchased a hotel known as “Hotel Swagath” from the

petitioners for valuable consideration. It is further alleged that an

order of ad-interim attachment relating to the said hotel, passed

under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, was subsequently made

absolute on 19.05.2003.

4. The further prosecution case is that on 02.09.2006, the

hotel premises was locked and sealed. Thereafter, on 03.11.2006,

pursuant to proceedings before the revenue authorities, the

possession of Hotel Swagath was handed over to the petitioners. The

petitioners are stated to have managed and administered the hotel

from 03.11.2006 to 25.12.2006.

5. It is alleged that on 25.12.2006, the premises was again

handed over to the de facto complainant in the presence of the

3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the complainant, during the

period when the petitioners were in management of the hotel, namely

from 03.11.2006 to 25.12.2006, they had removed certain movable

articles such as computer printer, generator, television, fridge,

camera and other articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/-.

6. Upon completion of investigation, the first respondent police

filed a final report in C.C.No.68 of 2011 before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, for the offences under Sections 380 and

414 IPC.

Grounds for Quash:

7. The petitioners seek quashment principally on the ground

that the entire dispute arises out of rival claims relating to title,

possession and management of Hotel Swagath and that the criminal

prosecution is a colourable device to settle a civil dispute.

8. It is contended that the hotel property had already been

subjected to attachment under the TNPID Act, 1997, and that, after

4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

such attachment, any transfer or alienation in favour of the de facto

complainant was void in terms of the statutory scheme.

9. The petitioners further contend that the de facto

complainant cannot claim ownership over either the hotel property

or the movable articles lying therein, since his alleged sale deed

dated 11.08.2003 is void ab initio.

10. It is further contended that the petitioners were the

original owners of the hotel and the movable articles, and that one

cannot commit theft of one’s own property unless the prosecution

clearly establishes that the property was in the lawful possession of

another and that it was dishonestly removed from such possession.

11. It is also contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer had

handed over possession to the petitioners on 03.11.2006 and,

thereafter, on 25.12.2006, the premises was again handed over to

the de facto complainant after verification of the articles available in

the premises. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the allegation of

removal of articles is inherently doubtful.

5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

12. The petitioners also rely upon subsequent proceedings

before the TNPID Court, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

to contend that the de facto complainant’s claim over the property

was negatived and he was relegated to appropriate civil remedies.

13. The petitioners further submit that there is unexplained

delay in lodging the complaint, since the alleged removal had taken

place between 03.11.2006 and 25.12.2006, whereas the complaint

was lodged only on 19.01.2007. It is also contended that the criminal

proceedings have remained pending for an unduly long period and

continuation of the same would amount to abuse of process of Court.

Submissions on either side:

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

prosecution lacks the essential ingredients of Sections 380 and 414

IPC. It was argued that the allegation is not one of theft simpliciter

but is embedded in a complex civil and statutory dispute concerning

title, attachment, possession and management of Hotel Swagath.

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

15. The learned counsel submitted that the hotel and its

fixtures originally belonged to the petitioners. The articles alleged to

have been stolen, namely computer systems, television, generator,

refrigerator, motor and allied articles, were part of the hotel

establishment and were installed by the petitioners themselves.

16. It was further argued that the offence under Section 380

IPC requires dishonest removal of movable property out of the

possession of another without consent. In the present case, the

petitioners had been put in possession by the revenue authorities

and, therefore, the element of dishonest removal from the possession

of another is absent.

17. The learned counsel further submitted that once the

offence of theft itself is not made out, Section 414 IPC cannot

survive, because that provision necessarily presupposes the

existence of stolen property.

18. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant’s

claim is founded upon a sale deed executed after the attachment

7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

proceedings under the TNPID Act, 1957. Referring to Rule 7 of the

Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Rules, it was

submitted that any transfer after attachment is null and void.

19. The learned counsel also submitted that the de facto

complainant unsuccessfully pursued proceedings before the TNPID

Court and this Court and that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court did

not accept his claim, but only left him to work out his remedy before

the civil Court. It was submitted that the civil suit filed by the de

facto complainant also ended against him and, therefore, the entire

foundation of the prosecution has collapsed.

20. On the question of maintainability, the learned counsel

submitted that though earlier quash petitions had been filed, the

present petition is founded upon subsequent developments and

changed circumstances, including the outcome of proceedings before

competent forums.

21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second

respondent/de facto complainant opposed the petition and

8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in view of

earlier quash petitions filed by the petitioners.

22. It was submitted that successive petitions under Section

482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained unless there are genuine

subsequent developments. According to the de facto complainant,

the petitioners are attempting to raise grounds which were available

even earlier.

23. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint

does not merely relate to title over immovable property. The specific

allegation is that during the period when the petitioners regained

possession of the hotel, they removed thirteen movable articles worth

about Rs.1,50,000/-.

24. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant had

purchased the property under a registered sale deed and was in

possession and management of the hotel. Therefore, the removal of

articles from the premises amounted to theft. It was argued that

disputed questions relating to possession, ownership of movables,

9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

removal of articles and intention cannot be decided in a petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and must be left to trial.

25. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) adopted

the submissions made on behalf of the de facto complainant and

submitted that the final report contains statements of witnesses

regarding removal of movable articles from the hotel premises. It was

submitted that the final report specifically refers to thirteen articles

allegedly removed by the accused persons and, therefore, the matter

requires adjudication by trial.

Point for Consideration:

26. The principal point that arises for consideration is whether

the final report in C.C.No.68 of 2011, alleging offences under

Sections 380 and 414 IPC, discloses the essential ingredients of the

said offences against the petitioners, or whether continuation of the

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court?

10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

Legal Position:

27. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, is intended to prevent

abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Though

the power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, the

Court is not powerless where the allegations, even if accepted at their

face value, do not constitute the offences alleged.

28. In proceedings seeking quashment of a final report, the

Court does not conduct a mini trial. However, the Court is entitled to

examine whether the uncontroverted allegations and the materials

collected during investigation disclose the basic ingredients of the

offences alleged.

29. The offence under Section 380 IPC is an aggravated form of

theft. To attract Section 380 IPC, the prosecution must first establish

theft as defined under Section 378 IPC. The essential ingredients are:

(i) there must be movable property;

(ii) such property must be in the possession of another person;

11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

(iii) the accused must move such property out of that

possession;

(iv) such moving must be without consent; and

(v) such moving must be with dishonest intention.

30. Section 414 IPC deals with voluntarily assisting in

concealing, disposing of or making away with property which the

accused knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property.

Therefore, the existence of “stolen property” is the foundation for

Section 414 IPC.

31. The allegation is that certain movable articles were

removed from Hotel Swagath during the period between 03.11.2006

and 25.12.2006, when the petitioners were in management of the

hotel.

32. The prosecution does not dispute that the petitioners were

original owners of the hotel establishment. It is also not in serious

dispute that the property was subject to proceedings under the

12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

TNPID Act and that possession of the hotel shifted between the

parties pursuant to orders of revenue/statutory authorities.

33. Therefore, the case does not present a simple factual

situation where an outsider entered into a building and removed

articles belonging to another. On the contrary, the prosecution itself

proceeds on the footing that the petitioners were in possession and

management of the hotel during the relevant period pursuant to

proceedings before the revenue authorities.

34. The essential ingredient of dishonest removal from the

possession of another is, therefore, not clearly made out. Where the

accused had been placed in possession of the premises by competent

authority and the movables are claimed by him as part of his own

hotel establishment, the matter partakes the character of a civil and

possessory dispute.

35. The question whether the de facto complainant had title to

the hotel, whether his sale deed was valid, whether he was lawfully

entitled to the movable articles, and whether the petitioners had a

13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

superior claim over the same, are matters deeply entangled with civil

and statutory adjudication. Such issues cannot be lightly converted

into a charge of theft unless the final report contains clear material

establishing dishonest intention at the very inception.

36. In the present case, the materials disclose a dispute over

possession and entitlement, but do not disclose the necessary

criminality required to sustain a charge under Section 380 IPC.

37. Section 414 IPC cannot stand independently in the

absence of stolen property. The provision is attracted only when the

property in question is shown to be stolen property and the accused

voluntarily assists in concealing, disposing of or making away with

such property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be

stolen. Once the allegation of theft itself is doubtful on the admitted

factual foundation, the consequential allegation under Section 414

IPC cannot be permitted to survive as an independent charge.

38. The final report does not disclose any distinct act of

concealment, disposal or making away with stolen property, apart

14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

from the very allegation of removal of articles. Therefore, Section 414

IPC is not independently attracted.

39. The materials placed before this Court indicate that Hotel

Swagath was subjected to proceedings under the TNPID Act, 1997. It

is also stated that the order of attachment was made absolute and

that subsequent proceedings were pursued before the TNPID Court,

this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

40. The petitioners contend that the de facto complainant’s

claim to title and possession was not accepted in those proceedings

and that he was relegated to civil remedies. The de facto

complainant, on the other hand, claims possession under a sale deed

and asserts investment in the hotel.

41. These rival claims themselves demonstrate that the dispute

is essentially one relating to title, possession, management and

entitlement over the hotel and its movables. Criminal law cannot be

used as a lever to decide such civil contests.

15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

42. It is true that the mere existence of civil proceedings is not

a ground to quash criminal prosecution. If the allegations disclose

criminality, the prosecution may proceed notwithstanding civil

litigation. However, where the criminal allegation is only a dressed-

up version of a civil dispute and the necessary ingredients of the

penal offences are absent, this Court would be justified in exercising

its inherent jurisdiction.

43. The alleged occurrence relates to the period between

03.11.2006 and 25.12.2006. The complaint was lodged on

19.01.2007. The final report was filed in the year 2011 and the case

has remained pending for a considerable period.

44. Delay by itself may not always be fatal. However, in a case

where the allegations are already intertwined with civil and statutory

disputes, the unexplained delay assumes relevance in assessing

whether continuation of the prosecution would serve any meaningful

criminal justice purpose.

16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

45. The long pendency of the prosecution, without any

substantial progress, also weighs with this Court, particularly when

the foundational ingredients of the offences are found wanting.

46. The de facto complainant has raised an objection that the

petitioners had earlier filed quash petitions and, therefore, the

present petition is barred as a successive petition. It is settled that

successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained

as a matter of routine. However, there is no absolute bar where

subsequent developments or changed circumstances materially

affect the substratum of the prosecution.

47. In the present case, the petitioners rely upon subsequent

proceedings before the TNPID Court, this Court and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, as well as the dismissal of the civil claim asserted by

the de facto complainant. These are not merely repetitive grounds

but are relied upon to demonstrate that the foundation of the de

facto complainant’s claim over the property and movables has been

seriously eroded.

17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

48. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, the

maintainability objection cannot defeat the exercise of inherent

jurisdiction when the Court finds that the continuation of

prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

49. On a careful consideration of the allegations in the FIR, the

final report, the rival submissions and the surrounding statutory

and civil proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the

prosecution has failed to disclose the essential ingredients of

Sections 380 and 414 IPC.

50. The materials disclose a long-standing dispute relating to

Hotel Swagath, its attachment under the TNPID Act, possession,

management, alleged sale deed and rival entitlement over movables.

Such a dispute cannot be permitted to continue as a criminal

prosecution for theft in the absence of clear averments of dishonest

removal from the possession of another.

18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

51. The offence under Section 380 IPC is not made out.

Consequently, Section 414 IPC also cannot survive, as there is no

legally sustainable foundation to treat the articles as stolen property.

52. Continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.68 of 2011, after

such prolonged pendency, would amount to permitting criminal

process to be used as an instrument of pressure in a civil and

statutory dispute.

53. The criminal court is not a forum for settling every dispute

clothed in the language of accusation. Where civil rights are

uncertain, possessory claims are contested, statutory attachment

has intervened and parties have travelled through multiple forums,

the criminal law must enter only when the complaint unmistakably

discloses a penal offence. It cannot be summoned to adjudicate title,

validate possession or resolve competing claims over business assets.

In the present case, the prosecution, even if taken at its highest,

does not cross the threshold required for continuing a criminal trial

for theft and concealment of stolen property.

19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

54. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

The proceedings in C.C.No.68 of 2011 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, arising out of Crime No.84 of

2007 on the file of the first respondent police, are quashed insofar as

the petitioners are concerned. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Dindigul.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,

Town North Police Station,

Dindigul Taluk,

Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.6075 of 2025

01.06.2026

21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis