(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.81 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the third accused in C.C.No.81 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, seeking to quash the final report arising out of Crime No.208 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police, wherein the petitioner stands charged with offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. A perusal of the final report would disclose that the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the other accused are residents of Vambarampatti Village and that there is previous enmity between them over a land dispute. According to the prosecution, on 17.12.2022 at about 13.00 hours, when L.W.1 noticed a JCB clearing the land near his house and questioned the same, A2 to A4 are alleged to have jointly abused him in filthy language. Insofar as the overt act attributed to the third accused is concerned, it is alleged that he beat L.W.1 with his hand on the right side of the head and on the cheek, and cut him above the right knee with a tin sheet held in his hand, thereby causing simple injury. On the above allegations, the final report charges A3 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC.

(B).Contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side are as follows:

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the parties have been embroiled in a long-standing civil dispute in O.S.No.72 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, and that the civil revision petition filed by the second respondent in C.R.P.(MD)No.2104 of 2017 came to be dismissed in favour of A1 and his late father. According to the learned counsel, the present complaint has been lodged only out of grudge, with a view to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. He would further submit that on 17.12.2022, it was the second respondent who picked up a quarrel and caused injury to A1, who was thereafter admitted in the Government Hospital by A2 and A3. The counter complaint lodged by the first accused was never investigated, and only the petitioner's side has been charge sheeted.

4.The learned counsel would further submit that the complaint came to be lodged only on 19.12.2022, two days after the occurrence, and that the delay remains wholly unexplained. The alleged heel injury is a self-inflicted one. The independent witnesses, namely, one Pandi and the JCB driver, have not been examined. He would also point out that the medical evidence discloses only a simple injury.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a 23 year old student pursuing his M.Sc. in Management at BPP University, London, and that continuation of the prosecution would only ruin his future without serving any useful purpose. Since the petitioner has been pursuing his studies abroad, he could not appear before the trial Court, and consequently, a look-out circular has been issued against him.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would contend that, when a look-out circular is pending against the petitioner, he cannot maintain a petition to quash the final report. He would further contend that specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner and, in such circumstances, the question of quashing the final report does not arise. Placing reliance upon the statement of the Doctor recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., he would point out that the wound certificate issued by the Doctor records that the defacto complainant had sustained a simple injury. Hence, no ground has been made out for quashing. Whether the complaint is false and whether the injury is self-inflicted are disputed questions of fact, which can be decided only at the time of trial.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

(C).Discussion:

8. It is not in dispute that the parties are neighbours who have been locked in civil litigation in O.S.No.72 of 2006 for nearly 16 years prior to the registration of the FIR. The final report itself records the previous enmity between the parties over the land, and the occurrence arose while the land was being cleared with a JCB. It is in this backdrop that the allegations against A3 have to be examined.

9. Insofar as the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC is concerned, the offence requires the utterance of obscene words in or near a public place, to the annoyance of others. The final report attributes obscene words jointly to all the four accused, without specifying what words, if any, were uttered by A3 himself. None of the witnesses speaks of any annoyance caused to the public. Even assuming that abusive or derogatory words were used, such words cannot be termed obscene unless they tend to deprave and corrupt. Hence, the ingredients of Section 294(b) of IPC are not made out as against the petitioner.

10. Insofar as the allegation under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner beat the defacto complainant with his hands. A1 is the father of the petitioner. A1 had also sustained injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Aranthangi, at about 07.10 p.m. on 17.12.2022, and was subsequently discharged. This fact is not in dispute. In such circumstances, the solitary act of the petitioner, who is the son of A1, in the course of a scuffle in which his father had sustained injuries, can only be regarded as an act done in self-defence.

11. Insofar as the allegation under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, it is alleged that A3 cut the second respondent above the right knee with a tin sheet. Column No.10 of the final report does not disclose the recovery of any weapon or article. The injury has been certified by L.W.6 as simple in nature. Though the complaint, as extracted in the petition, refers to a tin sheet, the same has neither been recovered nor produced before the Court concerned. The independent witnesses, namely, Pandi and the JCB driver, have not been cited in the list of witnesses. The allegation that the injured sustained a cut injury on the heel, caused by an unrecovered and unidentified tin sheet in the course of a scuffle between two neighbours, rests solely upon the complaint and the testimony of two witnesses from the same village. On such materials, the prospect of a conviction under Section 324 of IPC is bleak.

12. The third accused was a 23 year old student at the time of the occurrence and is now pursuing his post-graduation in London. The final report, though filed on 31.01.2023, was taken on file only in the year 2025 and is still pending. Owing to the non-appearance of the petitioner, who is pursuing his post-graduation abroad, a non-bailable warrant came to be issued, followed by a look-out circular. The prospect of a conviction under any of the three provisions is bleak. As regards the grievance of the second respondent relating to the land, civil remedies are available and are already being pursued by the defacto complainant. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against A3 would only amount to an abuse of the process of law.

(D).Conclusion:

13. In the light of the above discussion, the final report in C.C.No.81 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.