(Prayer in Crl.OP(MD).No. 10573 of 2026: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.70 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District as against the petitioners herein.

In Crl.OP(MD).No. 10574 of 2026:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.83 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District as against the petitioners herein.)

Common Order:

1. These two petitions have been filed by accused persons in PRC.Nos.70 and 83 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tuticorin seeking to quash the said proceedings.

2. A perusal of the charge sheet in PRC.No.70 of 2026 reveals that it arises out of an F.I.R in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 296(b) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992.

3. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused persons had threatened the defacto complainant at about 6.00 p.m on 30.12.2024. It is further alleged that at about 2.00 p.m on 05.01.2025 they have dumped mud in front of the hotel run by the defacto complainant.

4. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have instructed the 4th accused at about 10.00 p.m on 07.01.2025 to cause damage to the electrical post which supplies electricity to the hotel run by the defacto complainant. The charge sheet further alleged that at about 5.00 a.m on 08.01.2025 a tipper lorry had dashed against the transformer that supplies electricity to the hotel and caused a loss of Rs.73,340/-.

5. A perusal of the charge sheet in PRC.No.83 of 2026 reveals that it arises out of an F.I.R in Crime No.155 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police wherein the petitioners are said to have committed offences under Sections 49, 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS 2023 read with section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The charge sheet further reveals that there a dispute between the first petitioner (landlord) and the defacto complainant (tenant) with regard to the running of an hotel at about 7.45 p.m on 05.03.2025. When the employee of the hotel was standing in front of the hotel, at the instigation of A1, A2 and A3, the 4th accused along with Accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 had damaged the advertisement board of the hotel and removed the same using a welding machine. When confronted, the accused persons are alleged to have abused the employee and threatened him.

6. A perusal of the records further reveal that a counter case has been lodged by the first petitioner herein as against the tenant (Tamilselvan) and others in Crime No.31 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police on 13.01.2025 wherein the accused persons are said to have committed an offence under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS read with Section 4 of TNPPDL Act. It has culminated in filing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.378 of 2026 on the file the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that at about 5.15 p.m on 30.12.2024 when the landlord was talking to the tenant over rental arrears, by showing the documents, the second accused in the said case had instigated his employees and abused the defacto complainant and displayed the vulgar body action.

7. The committal proceedings in PRC.No.70 of 2026 and PRC.No.83 of 2026 as well as C.C.No.378 of 2026 are pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin.

8. The present petition in Crl.OP(MD).Nos.10573 of 2026 and 10574 of 2026 have been filed to quash the charge sheet in PRC.No.70 of 2026 and PRC.No.83 of 2026 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.

9. After arguments were completed and orders were reserved, affidavits were filed in both the petitions by the first petitioner. Paragraph No.3 and prayer in both the affidavits are extracted as follows:

                   Crl.OP(MD).No.10573 of 2026

                   “3.I submit that right now we are not pressing the relief of quashment of the proceedings and are confining our prayer only to seeking an appropriate direction for conducting a Join Trial along with the connected cases in P.R.C.No.70 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. I submit that the occurrence as projected to have taken place by the Prosecution is of the nature of case, case in counter.

                   I therefore humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Joint Trial of P.R.C.No.83 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District along with the connected cases in P.R.C.No.70 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and pas such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

                   Crl.OP(MD).No.10574 of 2026

                   “3.I submit that right now we are not pressing the relief of quashment of the proceedings and are confining our prayer only to seeking an appropriate direction for conducting a Join Trial along with the connected cases in P.R.C.No.83 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

                   I therefore humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Joint Trial of P.R.C.No.70 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District along with the connected cases in P.R.C.No.83 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”

10. In view of the affidavit filed by the petitioners, this Court has not gone into the merits of the quash petition and proceeds to consider the prayer of the petitioners for a joint trial.

11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the witnesses in all the cases are one and the same. There is a likelihood of conflicting version of each cases which could be avoided. Moreover PRC.No. 70 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 are nothing but, case and counter case where the parties had alleged that the incident had taken place about 05.15 p.m on 30.12.2024. He had further submitted that in such circumstances, all the three cases may be heard together.

12. He also relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 747 (Ganesan and another Vs. State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai and another) especially Paragraph No.58 and contented that in cross cases where one of the cases involves offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and in the other case none of the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, then, as provided in Section 323 of Cr.P.C, the jurisdictional Magistrate should commit both the cases for trial to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, according to him, when C.C.No.378 of 2026 and PRC.No.70 of 2026 arise out of case in counter case, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin should commit C.C.No.378 of 2026 also to the Sessions Court along with PRC.No.83 of 2026 and 70 of 2026. Hence, he prayed for tagging of all the three cases for simultaneous trial.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant in both the cases submitted that the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.46 of 2025 before the the First Additional District Court, Tuticorin for the relief of delivery of vacant possession after removing the structure as against the defacto complainant. The suit was filed in February 2025 and thereafter, without waiting for the outcome of the civil suit, the petitioners herein made further attempt to vacate the tenant through illegal means. Hence, the defacto complainant/tenant was constrained to file O.S.No. 24 of 2025 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticoirin seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the plaintiff's possession during the subsistence of the rental agreement and he should not be evicted unless by due process of law.

14. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant had further pointed out that one of the co-owners of the property has already filed O.S.No.46 of 2025 before the First Additional District Court, Tuticorin seeking partition of the above said property. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant had also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A(MD).No. 1105 of 2025 (Banumathi and others Vs.M.Tamil Selvan and others) wherein the attempt made by the petitioners herein to disconnect the electricity supply to the hotel was rejected. He also relied upon by a Division Bench order of this Court in WP(MD).No.33226 of 2025 (M.Kanthimathinathan Vs. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and others) wherein the petitioners made an attempt to have demolition of the hotel as if it is an unauthorized construction, was dismissed on 16.03.2026 imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- as against the first petitioner.

15. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant had further submitted that it is not a case of case in counter. The timings mentioned in the respective F.I.R are different and in such circumstances, it cannot be considered to be a case in counter case. The present petition has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and to bring the committal of case in PRC.Nos.17 and 83 of 2026 to the Court of Sessions to a halt. He had further submitted that the Judgment reported in 2011 (5) CTC 747 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

16. Since the incidents are completely different, though some of the witnesses may be the same, that may not be a ground to take all the three cases together. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the prayer for joint trial of the three cases.

17. Heard the learned counsel counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has primarily relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2011 (5) CTC 747 seeking a prayer for a joint trial of all the three cases. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet in PRC.No.83 of 2026 reveals that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 05.03.2025 at about 7.45 p.m where an employee of the hotel is alleged to have been attacked by the petitioners herein.

19. A perusal of the allegation in PRC.No.70 of 2026 reveals that the petitioners herein are said to have abused and threatened the employees of the hotel at about 6.00 p.m on 30.12.2024. A perusal of the charge sheet in C.C.No.378 of 2026 reveals that at about 5.15 p.m on 30.12.2024, the tenant is said to have thrown the documents shown by the landlord and instigated his employee to attack the landlord.

20. A comparison of these three charge sheets would clearly reveal that the charge sheet in PRC.No.83 of 2026 relates to an incident that has taken place on 05.03.2025 whereas the incident referred to in PRC.No.70 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 are said to have happened on 30.12.2024. Therefore, there is no necessity whatsoever to tag PRC.No.83 of 2026 along with other two cases.

21. When the charge sheets in PRC.No.70 of 2026 and C.C.No.378 of 2026 are compared, it reveals that the alleged incident in PRC.No.70 of 2026 is said to have taken place at about 6.00 p.m and the incident referred to in C.C.No.378 of 2026 is said to have taken place at about 5.15 p.m on 30.12.2024. It further reveals that they are not case in case of counter or different version of the same incident. The landlord (petitioner) alleges that when demanded the rental arrears, the tenant had thrown away the documents and instigated his employee to abuse and attack him. The tenant contends that the employees were abused and threatened by the landlord at about 6.00 p.m. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that tagging of all the three cases to be tried by the Court of Sessions is not necessary, especially when all the three incidents are separated by different dates and timings, they have to be independently tried.

22. Paragraph No.30 of the judgment reported in 2011 (5) CTC 747 (Ganesan and another Vs. State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai and another) which is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted as follows:

                   “30.At the outset , I have to state that under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. there can be joinder of charges in respect of three offences of the same kind committed within a year. But, in this case, the offences said to have been committed by these accused on four different occurrences would not fall within the ambit of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. In these cases, rightly, there was no joint trial by charging the accused together in respect of all four occurrences. The trial court had rightly conducted four separate trials. When that be so, the evidence let in one case in respect of one occurrence cannot be made use of against the accused in the other case. But the trial court has committed very serious illegality in considering the evidences in all cases together and in delivering a common judgement. In my considered opinion, delivering a common judgement in respect of four different occurrences making out four different offences on four different occasions and at four different places is illegal and the same is a procedure unknown to criminal law. Therefore, on this account, the entire judgement of the trial court is vitiated.”

23. In view of the above said decision, it is clear that when there are no joint of charges as contemplated under Section 219 of Cr.P.C and there are three different occurrences, making out three different offences on three different occasions, the prayer for joint trial is not legally sustainable.

24. In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the petitions and these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.