Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 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.21416 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.18426 and 18427 of 2025

1. Sathiya Bhama

2. Anto

... Petitioners/Accused No.

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by. the Inspector of Police,

Arumanai Police Station,

Kanniyakumari District.

Crime No.639/2014.

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. Sivakumar

.... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in

C.C. No. 240 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Kuzhithurai, and quash the same.

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

For Petitioners: Mr. P.Sonu

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

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,

Standing counsel

ORDER

Prologue:

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 in

C.C.No.240 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Kuzhithurai, seek quashment of the final report laid for the

alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii) and

427 IPC, corresponding broadly to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(4),

296(b), 351(3) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.12.2014, at

about 5.00 a.m., the petitioners along with other accused persons

allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the property

claimed by the second respondent/de facto complainant in R.S.No.

201/2 of Kavoorkonam, Arumanai, and damaged 85 rubber trees

said to be worth Rs.1,50,000/-.

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

3. It is further alleged that when the second respondent

questioned the accused, they abused him in filthy language,

threatened him with dire consequences and left the place. On this

foundation, the respondent police laid a final report against the

petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

Grounds for quash:

4. The petitioners contend that they have been falsely

implicated in a purely civil dispute relating to title and possession

over the property comprised in Old S.No.2302, corresponding to New

R.S.Nos.201/2 and 202/2 of Arumanai Village. According to the

petitioners, the property originally belonged to two Nair Tarwads,

namely Kavukonathu Veedu and Pottikanathu Kunju Veedu. Their

predecessor-in-title had acquired rights in the property, and

thereafter the petitioners’ father, Maruthu Nayagam, filed O.S.No.

447 of 1973 for redemption of mortgage before the learned I

Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

5. It is stated that a preliminary decree was passed on

31.07.1976 and, in A.S.No.124 of 1978, the learned Sub Judge,

Kuzhithurai, partly allowed the appeal on 26.08.1978 and allotted

1/3

rd

share in the entire extent of Old S.No.2302, corresponding to

New R.S.Nos.201/2 and 202/2, in favour of the petitioners’ father.

6. It is further submitted that a final decree was drawn on

21.09.1990 in I.A.No.1454 of 1986 in O.S.No.447 of 1973 and

delivery was taken in E.P.No.97 of 2002 on 27.10.2011. The

petitioners would further submit that the suit filed by one Narayanan

Nair, from whom the second respondent claims to have purchased

the property, in O.S.No.42 of 2004, was dismissed on 04.12.2012.

7. The petitioners also rely upon the order passed by this

Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10095 of 2012, granting police protection

to their predecessor. It is their specific case that after suffering

adverse orders in civil proceedings, the second respondent has set

up a sale deed and settlement deed and has now given a criminal

colour to a civil dispute.

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

8. The petitioners further submit that the original investigation

was referred as mistake of fact in R.C.No.43 of 2016 and only

pursuant to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Kuzhithurai, fresh enquiry was conducted and the present charge

sheet was laid.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

entire prosecution is a malicious continuation of the long-standing

civil dispute between the parties. It was contended that the question

of title and possession had already been adjudicated in favour of the

petitioners’ predecessor and delivery of possession had also been

effected through court process.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that the second

respondent, who claims under Narayanan Nair, cannot assert a

better title than his vendor, particularly when the suit filed by

Narayanan Nair was dismissed and when delivery had already been

taken by the petitioners’ predecessor.

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

11. It was next contended that the allegations against the

petitioners are vague and omnibus. Even as per the prosecution

version, the petitioners were not alleged to have actively cut or

damaged the rubber trees. The only allegation is that they were

waiting on the road and thereafter picked up the other accused in a

car.

12. The learned counsel also submitted that the alleged

occurrence is said to have taken place at 5.00 a.m. on 18.12.2014,

whereas the complaint was lodged only at 7.30 p.m., after an

unexplained delay of about 14½ hours. According to the petitioners,

such delay assumes significance in view of the admitted civil dispute.

13. It was further argued that the offence under Section 448

IPC is not attracted, since the property in question is only a rubber

plantation and not a building, tent or vessel used as a human

dwelling or place of custody. Therefore, the essential ingredient of

house trespass is wholly absent.

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

14. The learned counsel would finally submit that the

prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides and squarely falls

within the categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, warranting interference under

Section 528 BNSS.

15. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the final

report has been filed after investigation and that the truth or

otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in a petition under

Section 528 BNSS.

16. It was contended that the statements of witnesses disclose

the presence of the accused and the commission of offences.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons came in a group,

damaged rubber trees and threatened the de facto complainant.

17. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

submitted that the petitioners cannot seek quashment by relying

upon disputed documents and civil proceedings. It was contended

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

that pendency of a civil dispute by itself is not a ground to quash a

criminal prosecution, if the allegations disclose criminality. The

respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original

Petition, leaving all disputed questions to be decided by the trial

Court.

18. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

19. The point that arises for consideration is “whether the final

report in C.C.No.240 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.

2 and 3 are concerned, discloses the essential ingredients of the

offences alleged, or whether the prosecution is an abuse of process of

law arising out of a predominantly civil dispute?”

Legal position:

20. The power under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to

Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

circumspection. However, where the allegations in the final report,

even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the offences

alleged, or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala

fides, this Court is duty-bound to interdict the criminal process.

21. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2

, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the

allegations do not disclose any offence, where the allegations are

absurd or inherently improbable, or where the proceeding is

manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior

motive.

22. It is equally settled that the mere existence of a civil

dispute is not by itself a ground to quash a criminal prosecution.

However, where the entire substratum of the prosecution is a dispute

relating to title and possession, and where criminal allegations are

superimposed only to pressurise the opposite party in civil litigation,

the continuation of such prosecution would amount to abuse of

process.

21992 Supp(1) SCC 335

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

Analysis:

23. The materials placed before this Court disclose that the

dispute between the parties is not a simple case of trespass by

strangers. It is rooted in old title, mortgage, redemption, final decree,

execution proceedings, delivery of possession, rival sale deed and

subsequent civil litigation.

24. The petitioners trace their claim through a decree in

O.S.No.447 of 1973, the appellate decree in A.S.No.124 of 1978, the

final decree in I.A.No.1454 of 1986, and delivery in E.P.No.97 of

2002. The vendor of the second respondent is stated to have filed

O.S.No.42 of 2004 and the same was dismissed on 04.12.2012.

25. Thus, the criminal prosecution cannot be examined in

isolation. The property dispute had a long civil history much prior to

the alleged occurrence dated 18.12.2014. The second respondent’s

criminal complaint appears to be a continuation of the contest over

possession and enjoyment of the property.

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

26. To constitute an offence under Section 147 IPC, there must

first be an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC,

and force or violence must be used by such assembly or by any

member thereof in prosecution of the common object.

27. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the prosecution

materials do not disclose any specific overt act. The allegation is not

that these petitioners cut the trees, damaged the property or directly

participated in the alleged violence. The petitioners are roped in on a

vague and general allegation of being part of the group.

28. In a prosecution for rioting, the common object cannot be

mechanically inferred merely from relationship, prior civil dispute or

alleged presence. There must be material indicating that the accused

shared the unlawful common object. Such foundational material is

conspicuously weak insofar as these petitioners are concerned.

29. Section 148 IPC requires that the accused must be a

member of an unlawful assembly and must be armed with a deadly

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is

likely to cause death.

30. The final report does not specifically attribute possession of

any deadly weapon to these petitioners. No particular weapon is

assigned to them. No specific role is attributed to them in the alleged

cutting or damaging of rubber trees. In the absence of such specific

allegation, the offence under Section 148 IPC cannot be sustained

against these petitioners merely on the basis of omnibus implication.

31. Section 448 IPC punishes house trespass. House trespass

presupposes criminal trespass into or upon any building, tent or

vessel used as a human dwelling, or any building used as a place for

worship or as a place for custody of property.

32. The property in question, even according to the

prosecution, is a rubber plantation. The allegation is of damage to 85

rubber trees. There is no allegation that the petitioners entered into

any house, building, tent or vessel. Therefore, the very statutory

foundation for Section 448 IPC is absent.

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

33. At the highest, the allegation may relate to entry into land.

Such an allegation, without the ingredients of house trespass,

cannot be stretched to attract Section 448 IPC. Therefore, the charge

under Section 448 IPC is unsustainable against the petitioners.

34. Section 294(b) IPC requires that obscene words must be

uttered in or near a public place and such utterance must cause

annoyance to others. Mere use of abusive or filthy language, without

the statutory ingredients of obscenity and annoyance in a public

place, will not constitute the offence.

35. The final report does not specify the exact words allegedly

uttered by these petitioners. It merely states that filthy language was

used. Such bald and general allegation cannot satisfy the

requirement of Section 294(b) IPC. Criminal liability cannot rest

upon an undefined allegation of abuse.

36. To attract Section 506(ii) IPC, there must be a threat to

cause death, grievous hurt or other serious injury, and such threat

must be of such nature as to cause alarm to the person threatened.

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

37. The prosecution alleges that the accused threatened to do

away with the de facto complainant. However, there is no specific

allegation that these petitioners issued such threat. There is no

material showing that any alarm was actually caused or that the

alleged threat was capable of immediate execution.

38. The offence of criminal intimidation cannot be made out by

a routine recital that the accused threatened the complainant. The

allegation must disclose intentional intimidation with the requisite

mens rea. Such particulars are absent insofar as these petitioners

are concerned.

39. Section 427 IPC requires commission of mischief resulting

in loss or damage of Rs.50/- or more. Mischief involves intention or

knowledge of likelihood of causing wrongful loss or damage to the

public or any person.

40. The allegation is that 85 rubber trees worth Rs.1,50,000/-

were damaged. However, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, no

specific overt act of cutting, uprooting or damaging the rubber trees

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

is attributed to them. The prosecution itself appears to project them

as persons who were waiting on the road and allegedly facilitated the

other accused.

41. When the very possession and entitlement over the

property are the subject matter of civil contest and when court

delivery is relied upon by the petitioners’ side, the criminal allegation

of mischief must be scrutinised with care. In the absence of specific

overt acts, the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo the ordeal

of trial for the offence under Section 427 IPC.

42. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at about

5.00 a.m. on 18.12.2014, while the complaint was lodged at about

7.30 p.m. The delay is approximately 14½ hours. Delay by itself may

not be fatal in every criminal case. But in a case arising out of an

admitted civil dispute, unexplained delay assumes significance,

particularly when the allegations are omnibus and when the original

investigation was stated to have been referred as mistake of fact.

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

43. It is not in dispute that the case was originally referred as

mistake of fact in R.C.No.43 of 2016 and thereafter further enquiry

was undertaken pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate.

Though a final report can be laid after further enquiry in accordance

with law, the earlier reference as mistake of fact is a relevant

circumstance while examining whether the subsequent prosecution

is founded upon clear criminal material or is merely a resurrection of

a property dispute under criminal colour.

44. The facts of the present case reveal a long-standing civil

dispute, rival claims of title, earlier decrees, execution proceedings,

police protection proceedings, and subsequent civil suit. The criminal

prosecution has emerged from this matrix.

45. In such circumstances, allowing the prosecution to

continue against the petitioners on vague and omnibus allegations

would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as a

lever in civil litigation. The law does not permit such conversion of

civil hostility into penal prosecution unless the basic ingredients of

the alleged offences are clearly disclosed.

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

46. This Court is conscious that disputed questions of fact are

ordinarily matters for trial. However, when the final report itself does

not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the

petitioners and when their implication appears to be an extension of

a civil dispute, this Court would be failing in its duty if it relegates

the parties to a full-fledged trial.

Epilogue:

47. Criminal law is a solemn instrument of public justice. It

cannot be employed as a private weapon in a property battle. When

the substratum of the dispute is civil, and when the allegations of

criminality are vague, omnibus and unsupported by the essential

ingredients of the offences alleged, the continuation of prosecution

would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.

48. The inherent power of this Court exists precisely to prevent

such misuse. The doors of the criminal court cannot be kept open

merely to exert pressure in a dispute which has already travelled

through civil courts and execution proceedings.

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

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

The proceedings in C.C.No.240 of 2017 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, are quashed insofar as the

petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 alone are concerned.

50. It is made clear that this order is confined only to the

petitioners herein and shall not automatically enure to the benefit of

the other accused, unless they are similarly placed and seek

appropriate relief in accordance with law. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Kuzhithurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Arumanai Police Station,

Kanniyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.21416 of 2025

01.06.2026

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