Shivnath v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC, has filed the present quash petition.

¶2The case against the petitioners is that on 30.10.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioners allegedly went to the house of the de facto complainant, armed with a knife, steel pipe and wooden log, abused him in filthy language, and criminally intimidated him. Hence, the case came to be registered by the respondent police.

2.1. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners citing seven witnesses.

¶3The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first and second petitioner and the de facto complainant are blood brothers and there exists a civil dispute between them. It is stated that on 13.10.2019, a panchayat was convened in the presence of village elders to resolve the dispute regarding the partition of the ancestral property. However, the de facto complainant was not willing to share the entitlement of the first petitioner. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 14.10.2019 and 30.10.2019, the de facto complainant himself came to the petitioners' residence and threatened them. The petitioners, in turn, lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi TK, pursuant to which both parties were pacified.

¶4Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the first and second petitioners who are the blood brothers of the de facto complainant along with the 3rd petitioner said to have gone to the residence of the de facto complainant and threatened him regarding the partition of the ancestral property between close relatives, which has been given a criminal colour. Further, in this case, no armed weapons have been seized, and the presence of eyewitnesses is also doubtful. Hence, the complaint appears to be motivated.

¶5In view of the above and upon being satisfied with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant an interim stay. Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim stay.

¶6Notice to the second respondent has been served and the learned counsel on behalf of the second respondent has filed vakalat.

¶7Post this matter on 08.06.2026. 08-04-2026 Jd To

¶1The State represented by, The Inspector of Police Thellar Police Station. Tiruvannamalai Police District. Crime No.402/2019

¶2The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. CRLoMPoNO.o3694oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMARoJ. jd CRLoMPoNO.o3694oofo2026 in CRLoOPoNo.o5011oofo2026 08-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR in CRL OP No. 5011 of 2026 1. Ameerkhan 2. Thasthakeer @ Dhasthagirkhan 3. Raguman Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police Thellar Police Station. Tiruvannamalai Police District. Crime No.402/2019 2.Basheer Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Elangovan For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For R1