In Crl.O.P.No.24541 of 2019-MAD HC- High Court cannot embark upon testing evidence while considering petition u/s 482 of CrPC, rules Madras HC Justice G. Jayachandran [10-06-2022]

Read Order: C.GUNASEKARAN VS. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, June 17, 2022: In a case pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992, where illegal demolition was conducted and the accused alleged that he was not in the country at that time, the Madras HC has held that mere production of Airline ticket and passport without testing the veracity of the document is not adequate to quash the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 

The Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran disposed of the present criminal original petition instituted by the petitioner against the case that was registered against him for  commission of the alleged offences under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992,  by observing that the  petitioner in the present case can  seek appropriate recourse before the Court below, before framing of charge, by producing the corroborating documents strengthening his plea of alibi and thereafter file the petition. 

The petitioner in the present case, arraigned as the second accused, was seeking quashing of the final report by way of a criminal original petition. Facts in brief were that there was a property dispute between the de facto complainant and the family members of the petitioner. Mr.Chinnasamy, father of the petitioner, gave power of attorney to the defacto complainant in respect of the property in dispute. The petitioner herein, after his father’s demise, misused the power of attorney deed and made attempts to grab the property from the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the complainant informed the respondent-police that the three sons of Chinnasamy trespassed into his land with JCB and demolished the building which was under construction.  

Thereafter, a case was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Act, 1992, against the three sons of Chinnasamy and Section 294(b), 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 against the wife of Chinnasamy.  Subsequently, the petitioner herein who was arraigned as the second accused was shown as the absconding accused and the case against him was thus split up and was registered separately.  Hence, the present petition was filed.  It was the case of the petitioner that at the alleged time of occurrence of demolition, he was not present at the scene of occurrence, and was indeed in UAE. 

The Court observed that Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, 1992, made it clear that it was not necessary that damage to the public property should be caused only in the course of meeting, assembly or procession.  Even otherwise, if the material is available that any property damaged as an act of vandalism, it is punishable under Section 3 of TNPPDL, 1992, the Court stated.   

Further with respect to the plea of alibi, the petitioner produced the travel documents before the present Court. In respect of the same, this Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Top Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and observed that alibi is a defence for the accused which has to be proved in the manner known to law during trial. Affirming that mere production of Airline ticket and passport without testing the veracity of the document and the content is not adequate to quash the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court said, “The High Court cannot embark upon testing the evidence while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”. 

Thus, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate recourse before the Court below, the instant criminal original petition was disposed of.