V.Vidya v. State Rep.By

ORDER Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.310 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, this Criminal original petition has been filed.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2009, at about 14.00 hours, the defacto complainant K.C. Bose, had lodged a complaint that A1 is an Industrialist and business women and engaged in real estate business for several years. With regard to business dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant, on 10.03.2009 at about 10.00 hours, A1 along with A2 and A3 came in the car belongs to A1 bearing registration No. TN02 E 9191 and illegally trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and abused him in filthy language. Again, on 03.07.2009, at about

9.00 a.m., A1 an A2 trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and threatened him to give Rs.1 Crore for the expenses since his leader was remanded in jail. In turn, the defacto complainant replied that he will not afraid for her threatening and also told that he will call the police, and thereafter, A1 threatened him and left the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, on 13.08.2009 at about 12.55 p.m., A1 demanded Rupees One Crore and also threatened that she will set on fire against the defacto complainant and his family members. Based on the complaint, a case was registered Cr.No.310 of 2009 against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 385, 506(ii) of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.513 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. To quash the same, the present petition has been filed.

¶3The petitioner herself appeared in person and argued the case. The petitioner submitted that she was running a heavy engineering industry dealing with manufacture of heavy machineries for tyre industries, cement factories, sugar mills etc. One Mr. Vekatakrishnan, Venkateswaran, Suresh, introduced one K.C.Bose, to the petitioner stating that K.C. Bose had formed a layout at Orathur Village, SriperumbudurTaluk, duly approved in LPDTCP No. 99189 and convinced her that K.C. Bose is the registered power of attorney of 140 plots in Orathur Village, Kanchipuram District, which is available for sale and allured her to purchase the same. K.C.Bose had also gave a rosy picture about the business prospects and on believing his words, the petitioner parted with Rs.25 lakhs to purchase of 10 plots in the year 2002. After the registration, it came to light that K.C.Bose had played a fraud on her and the above said plots were earmarked for park and public utilities and registered as permanent gift deeds and handed over it to the Kundrathur Panchayat Union for procuring the approval for the approved layout confirming 27.88 acres of land. The defacto complainant herein (K.C.Bose) with the connivance of the registering authorities managed to get the sale deeds registered by artificially adding sub division in the approved plots, which were already sold to Makkal Nanbarkal, Nannalasangam, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Thereafter the petitioner had preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar, Chennai only against Venkatakrishnan, Venkateswaran and Suresh and a case was also registered in Crime No.665 of 2007. Thereafter, she came to know that K.C.Bose was the kingpin and she gave a complaint against him and the same was registered in Crime No.62 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w. Sections 471 and 120(b) IPC on the file of the Land Grabbig Cell, Chennai. Because of the registration of the above said case, to wreck vengeance, the said K.C.Bose threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and he will do away her if the complaint against him was not withdrawn. Thus, on

23.04.2008, the petitioner had sent a representation to the DGP.

¶4She further submitted that the date of criminal intimidation for the first occurrence as indicated in the present case FIR Index in Cr.No.310 of 2009 dated 14.08.2009 is on 10.08.2009 at 10.00 a.m.. On 10.08.2009, A3 was in prison. But, in the First Information Report, the date of criminal intimidation for the first occurrence is indicated as 10.06.2009 at

10.00 a.m., and the car projected as the property of crime was in a service center,namely, Perfect Maruthi Care, which is a franchise of Maruthi Cars Ltd and the car was delivered only at 2.30 p.m to the residence of the petitioner by Mr.Prabu, who was an employee of Perfect Maruthi Care, which is corroborated in the check in register, dated 06.06.2009 and check out register, dated 10.06.2009, in which the petitioner put her signature. Suppressing those facts, the Investigation Officer had filed the charge sheet and thus, prays to allow the petition.

¶5To support her case, she relied upon the following judgments

(i) 1988(1) SCC 692 ( Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & others /vs/ Sambbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & others), (ii) 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana & Others /vs/ Bhajan Lal and others), (3) 2011(1) MLJ (Crl.) 128 (SC) ( Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan /vs/ Ram Gopal Poddar and another).

¶6The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the State submitted that this petition has no merits and the evidence cannot be appreciated while exercising Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it may not be quashed at the initial stage and thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶7The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant submitted that this petitioner had already filed a Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. No.9227 of 2014 to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, and the same was dismissed on 17.12.2014 on the ground that the petitioner made an endorsement not pressing the petition, reserving all the ground raised therein to be raised before the lower court at the time of trial. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion, the Criminal original petition was dismissed as not pressed. Under these circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and hence, pleaded to dismiss the petition.

¶8I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on records carefully.

¶9On perusal of the records, it reveals that in pursuance of a complaint given by one K.C.Bose, on 14.08.2009 at about 14.00 hours the case in Crime No.310 of 2009 against 3 persons for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 385, 506(ii) of IPC for the incidents took place on

10.06.2009, 30.07.2009 and 13.08.2009.

¶10For better appreciation of this case, the First Information Report in Crime No.310 of 2009 is reproduced herein : " Iah. ehd; nkw;fz;l Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; fle;j gy tUl';fshf hpay; v!;nll; bjhHpy; g[hpe;J tUfpnwd;/ ,t;tifapy; tp/tpj;ah vd;gth; vdf;F gy tUl';fSf;F Kd;g[ thof;ifahsuhf mDfpdhh;/ mth; vd;id gw;wpa[k; vdJ bjhHpy; gw;wpa[k; ed;F mwpe;J bfhz;lhh;/ ,e;epiyapy; fle;j rpy tUl';fshf epy';fspd; kjpg;g[ gy kl';F Toajhy; K:d;W tUl';fSf;F Kd;g[ tpj;ah vd;id mQqfp gzk; gwpf;Fk; nehf;fj;njhL eP ,t;tst[ rk;ghjpf;fwpna vdf;F gzk; bfhL vdf;F gpd;dhy; xU Tl;lnk cs;sJ/ eP gzk;bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; cdf;F cs;s bgaiua[k;. cd;ida[k;. cd; FLk;gj;ija[k; xHpj;J tpLntd; vd;W Twpdhh;/ mjd;gpwF tpj;ah vd;id kpul;Lk; thf;fpy; mtUila ntiyfis Muk;gpj;jhh;/ vd; kPJ ntz;Lbkd;nw gy bgha;ahd g[fhh;fis mspj;jhh;/ mtUf;F rk;ke;jnk ,y;yhj tpc&aj;jpy; <LghLbfhz;L vd;kPJ bgha;ahd tHf;Ffis nghl;lhh;/ mth; me;j bgha;ahd g[fhuhy; vd;kPJ kj;jpa Fw;wg;gphpt[ brd;idapy; vg;/I/Mh; nghlg;gl;L tprhhpf;fg;gl;L Kof;fg;gl;lJ/ mnjhL epw;ftpy;iy/ Crl.O.P.No.32074oofo2019 tHf;Fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L mJt[k; Kof;fg;gl;lJ/ ,e;epiyapy; nkw;brhd;d tpj;ah kPJ rp/gpI/ tHf;F ,Ug;gjhfj; bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ ,g;goapUf;ifapy; fle;j 10/06/2009 md;W Rkhh; 10.00 kzpastpy; ehd; nkw;brhd;d Kfthpapy; cs;s vdJ tPl;oy; ,Uf;Fk;nghJ tpj;ah mtuJ fhhpy; rp/vd;/o/vd;/82, 9191 te;jhh;/ mf;fhhpy; eifKfd; vd;gth; mkh;e;jpUe;jhh/; vd; tP;l;L cs;ns itj;J vd;idg; ghh;j;J tpj;aht[k; tPub$fjPrDk; mj;JkPwp EiHe;J vd; tPl;L cwhypy; itj;J vd;idg; ghh;j;J njtoah igad; vt;tst[ ehd; cd;fpl;l gzk; nfl;L ,Uf;f Mdhy; eP bfhLf;f khl;nl';fpw nf!; nghl;L cd;id lhh;r;rhh; gz;zpdhYk; mrp';fkh ng;gghpy; vGJntd;/ vd;d brhd;dhYk; eP krpakhl;nl';fpw mjdhyjhd; vd; jiytd; eifKfd; ,d;idf;F Tlo; f;bfhz;L te;jpUf;nfd; vd;W Twpdhh;/ eP ahiuf; Tl;of;bfhz;L te;jhYk; gag;glkhl;nld; vd;W Twpndd;/ eifKfDk; bjUtpy; fhhpypUe;J mtid btspna ,Gj;Jl;L th';flhmtid bjhiyr;rpUnthk; vd;W rj;jk; nghl;lhh/; clnd tpj;ah njtoah gany cd;id f;nsh!; gzz; hk;y tplkhl;nld; vd;W kpul;otpl;L ngha;tpl;lhh;fs/; mg;nghJ vd; ez;gh; gp/njrp';fd; cld; ,Ue;jhh;/ mth;fs; kPJ ,Ue;j gaj;jhy; ehd; md;iwajpdk; g[fhh; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ ,e;epiyapy; eifKfd; kw;Wk; mtuJ Tl;lhspfs; ifJ gw;wp bra;jpj;jhs;fs; K:ykhf mwpe;J bfhz;nld;/ fle;j 30/07/2009 md;W fhiy Rkhh; 9/00 kzpastpy; tpj;ah kw;Wk; tPub$fjPrd; vd; tPl;ow;F Ml;nlhtpy; te;jdh;/ tpj;ah vd;idg; ghh;j;J nla; vd; jiytd; cs;ns ngha;tpl;lhd; vd;gjw;fhf bjdhbtl;lhf cl;fhh;e;J ,Uf;fpah khpahijahf Ugha; xU nfho bfhLj;JtpL/ vd; jiytd; cs;ns ,Ug;gjhy; brytpw;F clnd gzk; ntz;Lk; vd kpul;o vd;id v';Fk; nghftplhkj;y jLj;Jtpl;ldh/; ehd; clnd ,dpnky; brytpw;F clnd gzk; ntz;Lk; vd;W kpul;o vd;id Pageo9oofo15 v';Fk; nghftplhky; jLj;Jtpl;ldh;/ ehd; clnd ,dpnky; c';fs; kpul;lYf;F gag;glkhl;nld; fhty;Jiwapy; g[fhh; mspj;JtpLntd; vdf;Twp vd; nghid vLj;jt[lnd mth;fs; cd;id Toa rPf;fpuj;jpy; rhfoj;JtpLntd; vd;W kpul;otpl;L btspna brd;Wtpl;ldh; / mjd;gpwF new;W tpj;ah vd;dplk; 13/08/2009 gfy; 12/55 kzpastpy; vd;Dila nghd; bek;gh; 9841637303 f;F nghd; bra;J U:gha; xUnfhoia bfhLj;jhy; cd;id thHtpLnthk;my;yJ cd;ida[k; cd; FLk;gj;ija[k; jP itj;J bfhSj;jptpLnthk; vd;W kpul;odhh;/ kPz;Lk; ,d;W 14/08/2009 gfy; Rkhh; 1/20 kzpastpy; tpj;ah vd; nghdpw;F Tg;gpl;L kpul;odhh;/ ,jw;Fnky; vd;id capnuhL tplkhl;lhh;fs; vd;W gae;J mth;fs; kpul;liya[k; kPwp ,e;j g[fhiu mspf;fpnwd;/ Mifahy; Iah mth;fs; jat[ Th;e;J ,e;j g[fhiu tprhhpj;J nky;eltof;if vLj;J vdf;F jFe;j ghJfhg;g[ mspf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ The respondent police, after investigation, filed final report for the offences under Sectoions 448, 341, 294(b), 387, 201 and 506(i) r/w.34 IPC.

¶11On perusal of the final report, it reveals that the respondent police charged the petitioner as A1 along with two other persons, namely, Veera Jegadeesan and Nagaimugan as A2 and A3.

¶12I have gone through the other materials on record, which reveals that the alleged first incident took place on 10.06.2009. The next alleged incident took place on 30.07.2009. The third incident took place on

13.08.2009. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner herein had given a complaint against the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein, which was registered in Crime No.665 of 2007 on

31.03.2007 for the offences under Sections 420, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act r/w. 34 of IPC by the Inspector of Police, R7 K.K.Nagar police station, T.Nagar against one K.Venkatakrishnan and two others and also another complaint given by the petitioner against this complainant K.C.Bose with regard to the same dispute, considering the real estate transaction, which was closed by the police on 30.10.2007.

¶13It is also not in dispute that another case in Crime No.27 of 2009, dated 23.01.2009 and Crime No.46 of 2009 dated 08.02.2009, Crime No.207/2009 dated 03.06.2009 were filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in the year 2009 against the complainant. It reveals the dispute between the parties for a very long period with regard to the real estate transaction.

¶14The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed , the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether un-contraverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. By applying the principles and considering the First Information Report, final report and other materials, it clearly reveals that no primafacie case has been made out as against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 448,341,294(b), 387, 201 & 506(i) r/w.34 IPC. It seems the complaint levelled with absurd of charges against the petitioner. These are so absurd and no reasonable ground to accept the same. Mere the outburst is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC. The provision is attracted only if criminal intimidation includes threat to cause of death or grievous hurt and there should be real threat.

¶15It is intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to what he has stated comes within the meaning of the criminal intimidation. The threat must be with intention to cause the alarm to the complainant, to cause the person to do or omit to do any wok. Some expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 503 an 506 IPC. The material reveals only the outburst of the petitioner. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner and it is only the outburst of the petitioner. It meets the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

(i) R.P.Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604

(iii) M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315

¶16In view of the above, the criminal proceedings in C.CNo.513 of 2010 against the petitioner and other accused are misusing of the process of law and Court and there is no primaface case made out and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶17Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and C.C.No.513 of 2010 is quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

22.09.2023 mrp To The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

V.SIVAGNANAM ,J. mrp

22.09.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 14.08.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 22.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P.Nos.17598 & 17599 of 2019 V. Vidya ... Petitioner /vs/ 1. State represented by Inspector of Police (crime), S-9, Palavanthangal P.S., Chennai 114 2. K.C.Bose ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.513 of 2010 and quash the charge sheet pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. For Petitioner ... Ms. V. Vidya For Respondents ... Mr. L. Baskaran, Government Advocate for R1 ... Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, For R2