Madras High Court
Ramesh Ramanathan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1689 of 2024
1. Ramesh Ramanathan
2. Umaram ... Petitioners/Accused No.
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superindent of Police
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Crime No.367/2023
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District. .... Respondents / Complainant
3. Kalishwari ... Respondent /
De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with the FIR in
Cr.No.367/2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent police and quash
the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R-2 : Mr.R.Alagumani
ORDER
Preface:
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court, though extraordinary in
its amplitude, is not unbridled in its exercise. It is invoked not to
conduct a miniature trial, nor to supplant the statutory process of
investigation, but to prevent abuse of the process of law and to
secure the ends of justice.
2. Cases arising out of bitter civil disputes often assume a
criminal complexion. Equally, criminal law cannot be stifled merely
because the backdrop includes a civil contest. The Court must,
therefore, carefully examine whether the criminal process has been
set in motion on a factual foundation disclosing the ingredients of
cognizable offences, or whether it has been employed as a weapon in
a property struggle.
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
3. The present petition is one such case where allegations of
trespass, abuse, theft, mischief and intimidation are interwoven with
a longstanding dispute over title, possession and alleged
encroachment, and where the additional invocation of the provisions
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, gives the matter a grave statutory complexion.
4. The petitioners seek quashment of the FIR in Crime No.367
of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent police, contending that the
entire prosecution is mala fide, inherently improbable, and a
dressed-up attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case.
Case of the prosecution:
5. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the
complaint and the FIR, is that the 3rd respondent / defacto
complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. According to
the complaint, on 24.12.2023 at about 06.45 a.m., the 1st petitioner,
who is stated to be a real estate businessman, along with about 30
persons, entered the house of the defacto complainant situated at
Kurinji Nagar, Kodaikanal.
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
6. It is alleged that the accused persons abused the defacto
complainant in filthy language by referring to her caste name,
humiliated her, damaged household articles worth about Rs.
4,00,000/-, took jewels and cash from the house, and thereafter
threatened the complainant and her family members with dire
consequences, including that they would not be permitted to remain
in Kodaikanal unless they vacated the locality.
7. It is further the prosecution case that the complaint came to
be lodged on 26.12.2023 at about 10.30 p.m., nearly two days after
the alleged occurrence, and that the same was registered as Crime
No.367 of 2023 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 427, 506(i),
379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Grounds for quash:
8. The petitioners would state that they are husband and wife,
senior citizens, and permanent residents of Chennai, and that the
allegations are wholly false. The specific case of the petitioners is
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024that the 2nd petitioner is the lawful owner of the property comprised
in Survey Nos.32/7, 32/8 and connected survey fields at Kurinji
Nagar, Kodaikanal.
9. According to them, the properties originally belonged to one
Mariappan and Nambikkai Mary, who sold the lands on 07.12.1994
in favour of one Dewasudin under registered sale deeds. The legal
heirs of the original vendors are stated to have attested those sale
deeds. It is the further case of the petitioners that when disputes
later arose, the said purchaser instituted O.S.No.187 of 1997 before
the learned District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal, and obtained a decree
for permanent injunction on 12.09.2001 in his favour.
10. The petitioners would then state that the 2nd petitioner
purchased the very same properties under registered sale deeds
dated 06.09.2007 in Document Nos.2249 and 2250 of 2007, and
that ever since then, the revenue records, including patta, stand in
her name. The petitioners assert that the legal heirs of the original
vendors, and persons claiming through them, have been creating
5/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024obstacles over the years and have attempted to interfere with the
petitioners’ possession.
11. It is specifically pleaded that one Raj @ Kulanthairaj,
connected to the rival branch, had earlier filed W.P.(MD) Nos.636 of
2021 and 9638 of 2021 seeking a direction to the police not to
interfere in the civil dispute, and that the same came to be
dismissed, leaving the parties to work out their remedies in the
manner known to law.
12. The petitioners would allege that the 3rd respondent is one
among the encroachers who has occupied a portion of the
petitioners’ property, and that whenever the petitioners or their men
attempt to inspect or assert possession, false complaints are being
lodged to prevent them from dealing with their own land.
13. The petitioners also state that on 27.12.2023 their
caretaker found that the compound wall had been damaged by the
defacto complainant and her associates, and that a complaint was
lodged by them before the police, but only a CSR was issued and no
6/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024effective action was taken. The petitioners further contend that the
complaint suffers from unexplained delay of nearly two clear days,
though serious allegations of theft, large-scale damage, caste abuse
and criminal intimidation are made.
14. It is their further contention that they were not present at
Kodaikanal on the date of occurrence and that they reside in
Chennai. In particular, the 2nd petitioner, according to them, is
suffering from cardio vascular ailments and cannot even
conveniently reside in high-altitude terrain such as Kodaikanal.
15. The petitioners would also contend that even assuming the
complaint to be true, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged
are not made out. According to them, the allegation of caste abuse is
stated to have occurred inside the house of the complainant and not
in a place within public view, and hence Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act are not attracted. It is also pleaded that Section 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act cannot independently survive when the
foundational ingredients showing commission of a scheduled offence
7/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste are
absent.
16. The petitioners also seek to contend that the status of the
defacto complainant under the SC/ST Act itself is disputed, by
referring to a report said to have been called for from the Tahsildar
regarding the marriage of Kalishwari and Antonysamy and the
religions followed by them. They would lastly contend that the FIR is
a classic instance of giving criminal colour to a civil land dispute and
that permitting the criminal law to continue would amount to abuse
of process.
Submissions on either side:
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners purchased the property in the year 2007 and have been
unable to remove the encroachers for nearly eighteen years, and that
every attempt to inspect or assert their rights is being met with
criminal complaints.
8/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
18. He would submit that there is already a civil court decree
in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title and that the
documents of title, revenue records and connected materials
unmistakably reveal a longstanding civil dispute. The learned
counsel further submitted that the complaint was lodged only on
26.12.2023 though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on
24.12.2023, and that such delay remains wholly unexplained despite
the magnitude of allegations.
19. He would submit that the petitioners are residents of
Chennai and were not physically present at the scene, and that the
2nd petitioner has been roped in solely because she is the owner of
the property. The learned counsel also submitted that even as per
the FIR, the alleged caste remarks were uttered inside the house of
the defacto complainant and not in any place within public view, and
therefore the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
Act are not made out.
20. He would further submit that there is no specific averment
satisfying the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC, inasmuch as neither
9/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
the exact obscene words nor the element of annoyance to others is
spelt out in the complaint. He also argued that Section 506(i) IPC is
not attracted as there is no clear assertion of real alarm or
intimidation of such nature as contemplated in law.
21. With regard to Sections 427 and 379 IPC, the learned
counsel submitted that the allegations are bald, exaggerated and
unsupported by particulars, and are plainly introduced to intensify
the criminal colour of the dispute. The learned counsel placed
reliance on the settled principle that where a dispute is essentially
civil in nature and where criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended by mala fides, this Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
22. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
submitted that the FIR discloses cognizable offences of a serious
nature. He would submit that the accusation is not a mere land
dispute, but an incident of unlawful assembly, trespass into the
house of the defacto complainant, caste-based humiliation, theft of
10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
jewels and cash, mischief causing damage to household articles, and
criminal intimidation.
23. It was further submitted that once the complaint discloses
the ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court ought not to
interdict the investigation or the prosecution at the threshold merely
because the accused set up a rival case of title or possession. The
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the marriage of
the defacto complainant was solemnized according to Hindu
customary practices in a Murugan temple and that the community
certificate of the defacto complainant has also been furnished.
24. He would submit that merely because there is some
argument regarding religion or the customs being followed, the
statutory protection available to a member of a Scheduled Caste
cannot be lightly brushed aside. It was further contended that the
petitioners cannot rely upon their title deeds or civil decree to justify
taking law into their own hands and entering the house of the
defacto complainant along with others.
11/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
25. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that
the FIR was registered in 2023, that the petitioners rushed to this
Court and obtained stay of filing of final report, and that the
prosecution ought not to be throttled at inception. Both the learned
Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the defacto
complainant would therefore submit that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
Point for consideration:
26. In the above backdrop, the point that arises for
consideration is as follows:
Whether the allegations in the FIR in Crime No.367 of 2023, taken
at their face value and read as a whole, disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 427,
506(i), 379 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, so as to warrant continuation
of the criminal proceedings, or whether the case is one where the
FIR deserves to be quashed as an abuse of process of law?
12/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024Analysis:
27. The materials placed by the petitioners disclose that the
dispute between the parties is not an isolated criminal occurrence
emerging in a vacuum. It is embedded in an admitted and
longstanding controversy relating to title, possession and enjoyment
of immovable property.
28. The petitioners have relied upon registered sale deeds of
the year 1994 executed by the original owners in favour of their
predecessor-in-title, a decree for permanent injunction passed in
O.S.No.187 of 1997 in favour of that predecessor, and subsequent
registered sale deeds of the year 2007 in favour of the 2nd petitioner.
They have also referred to earlier writ proceedings instituted by
persons from the rival side seeking police non-interference in the
civil dispute, which came to be dismissed.
29. These materials are not being looked into for the purpose
of adjudicating title finally. This Court is conscious that title disputes
cannot be concluded in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They
are, however, relevant for a limited purpose, namely, to assess
13/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
whether the FIR springs from a pre-existing property conflict and
whether the criminal law has been invoked in that setting.
30. The answer to that limited enquiry is in the affirmative. The
complaint is clearly situated in the midst of a property contest. That
by itself does not warrant quashment. But it supplies the necessary
context for examining the allegations with greater care.
31. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on
24.12.2023 at about 06.45 a.m., whereas the complaint came to be
lodged only on 26.12.2023 at about 10.30 p.m. The allegations are
not of a minor verbal altercation. They include unlawful assembly,
caste-based humiliation, theft of jewels and cash, damage to
household articles worth Rs.4,00,000/-, and criminal intimidation.
32. In a case of such gravity, some explanation for the delay
would ordinarily be expected in the complaint itself or in the
surrounding circumstances. No such satisfactory explanation is
discernible from the materials placed before this Court. Delay by
itself may not always be fatal at the FIR stage; yet, when viewed
14/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
alongside the admitted property dispute and the broad, omnibus
allegations, the unexplained delay does cast a serious shadow over
the spontaneity and credibility of the accusation.
33. To attract Section 147 IPC, the complaint must disclose the
ingredients of unlawful assembly and the use of force or violence by
that assembly in prosecution of the common object.
34. In the present case, the allegation is that the 1st petitioner
came along with 30 rowdy elements. No names are given for most of
them. The complaint does not disclose with precision the common
object, the overt acts of the individual accused, or the specific role
attributable to the 2nd petitioner.
35. Mere use of the expression “came with 30 persons” is not,
in the facts of this case, sufficient to sustain the offence of rioting as
against the petitioners, especially when the entire episode is laid
against the background of a land dispute and the allegations are
highly generalized. The accusation appears more rhetorical than
15/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
particularized. As against the petitioners, the foundational facts
necessary to sustain Section 147 IPC are not satisfactorily spelt out.
36. It is settled that to constitute an offence under Section
294(b) IPC, the complaint must not only refer to obscene utterances,
but must also indicate that the words were uttered in or near a
public place and caused annoyance. In the present complaint,
neither the exact obscene expressions are set out nor is there any
clear averment regarding annoyance caused in the manner known to
law.
37. The substance of the complaint is directed more towards
abuse by caste name than obscenity in a public setting attracting
Section 294(b) IPC. Therefore, even on a plain reading of the FIR, the
ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC are not made out against the
petitioners.
38. The complaint contains a broad allegation that household
articles worth about Rs.4,00,000/- were damaged. However, no
particulars are furnished as to what articles were damaged, how the
16/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
valuation was arrived at, what overt acts were committed by which
accused, and whether any contemporaneous material supported the
allegation.
39. Standing alone, such a bald assertion may perhaps
warrant investigation in an ordinary case. But in the present case,
where the dispute is intensely civil, where rival allegations of damage
are said to exist, and where the accusation is cast in sweeping terms
against a crowd, the invocation of Section 427 IPC against the
petitioners appears insufficiently grounded. More importantly, the
complaint lacks the specificity necessary to distinguish a genuine
penal allegation from an exaggerated recital appended to a property
quarrel.
40. The allegation of theft is that jewels and cash were taken
away from the house. Theft is a grave accusation requiring at least
basic particulars as to the identity of the property, its possession,
and the act of dishonest moving.
17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
41. The complaint is singularly deficient in this regard. There
is no meaningful description of the jewels, no particulars of cash
allegedly stolen, no indication as to who specifically removed the
articles, and no factual detail from which dishonest intention can be
inferred other than the bare assertion itself.
42. In the setting of an admitted land dispute and a complaint
lodged after delay, such a vague allegation of theft appears to have
been introduced more as an embellishment than as a specific penal
accusation. This Court is therefore unable to hold that the
ingredients of Section 379 IPC are prima facie disclosed against the
petitioners in the manner required by law.
43. The complaint alleges that the petitioners threatened the
defacto complainant and her family members that they would not be
permitted to remain in Kodaikanal without vacating the locality. To
attract Section 506(i) IPC, there must be an allegation of threat with
intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
18/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
44. The FIR in the present case does not disclose, in clear
terms, that the complainant was placed in such alarm as the law
contemplates. The averments are general and are not accompanied
by particulars indicating the nature, immediacy or effect of the
threat. Where criminal intimidation is pleaded merely as a ritual
addition to an already overloaded complaint arising from a civil
dispute, the Court must examine the allegation with caution. On
such scrutiny, this Court finds the accusation under Section 506(i)
IPC too vague and legally insufficient to stand on its own footing.
45. The gravamen of the complaint under the SC/ST Act is
that the defacto complainant was abused by referring to her caste
name. The statute penalises intentional insult or intimidation with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view. In the present case, even as
per the complaint and the written submissions of the petitioners, the
allegation is that the accused entered into the house of the defacto
complainant and there uttered caste-based abuse.
19/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
46. If the occurrence is alleged to have taken place inside the
house of the complainant, the essential requirement of the insult
being in any place within public view assumes decisive importance.
There is no specific assertion in the complaint that the alleged caste
abuse occurred in the presence of independent members of the
public or in circumstances satisfying the test of “public view”.
47. A private house is not, by itself, a place within public view.
Whether, in a given case, an occurrence inside a house may
nevertheless be visible to or witnessed by persons constituting the
public depends upon specific factual averments. Such averments are
absent here.
48. It is not enough merely to allege use of caste name. The
statutory ingredients must be clearly borne out. In the absence of the
element of public view, the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the Act are not prima facie made out. Once this Court reaches
such conclusion on the face of the complaint itself, the mere addition
of those sections cannot immunise the FIR from judicial scrutiny.
20/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
49. Section 3(2)(va) is attracted when an offence specified in
the Schedule is committed against a person on the ground that such
person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the
present case, the complaint does not contain clear foundational facts
showing that the alleged IPC offences were committed on the ground
of the complainant’s caste identity, apart from the generalized
allegation of caste abuse.
50. Where the dispute is fundamentally over property, where
the complaint itself indicates a pre-existing land conflict, and where
the core statutory ingredients under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are
absent, invocation of Section 3(2)(va) cannot be mechanically
sustained. The derivative provision under Section 3(2)(va) cannot
survive in the absence of a clear factual basis linking the alleged
offences to caste-based targeting as contemplated by the statute.
51. The allegations in the FIR are overwhelmingly directed
against the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner has been arrayed as
A3.There is no specific overt act attributed to the 2nd petitioner
except that she is the owner of the property and is the wife of the 1 st
21/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
petitioner. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that she was not
present at the scene and that she is a patient with cardio vascular
ailments residing at Chennai.
52. Whatever may be the ultimate truth of those statements,
the complaint itself is bereft of precise allegations against the 2nd
petitioner. Her implication appears to be a consequence of ownership
and relationship rather than of specific criminal conduct.
Continuation of the prosecution as against such a person, on the
present complaint, would be plainly unjust.
53. The cumulative effect of the circumstances is striking: a
long-standing property dispute; registered documents and a prior
civil decree on one side; rival occupation and alleged encroachment
on the other; earlier writ proceedings; a delayed complaint; omnibus
allegations against a crowd; lack of particulars for theft, mischief and
intimidation; and absence of the statutory element of public view for
the offences under the SC/ST Act.
22/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
54. This Court is conscious that criminal law cannot be
neutralised merely because civil proceedings also exist. Yet, when the
criminal complaint itself appears to be a tactical extension of a
property battle, the Court would fail in its duty if it permits
prosecution to continue solely as a means of pressure.
55. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate that
the private property dispute between the parties has been projected
in the form of a criminal case carrying serious penal allegations,
including those under the special enactment. On the materials now
available, continuation of the impugned FIR against the petitioners
would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for
collateral purposes.
56. Upon an anxious consideration of the FIR, the submissions
made on either side, and the peculiar factual background of the case,
this Court is of the clear view that the continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained. The
allegations, even if read at their face value, do not satisfy the legal
23/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
ingredients of Sections 294(b), 506(i), 379 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
57. Equally, the allegations under Sections 147 and 427 IPC,
in the factual setting of this case, are too vague, omnibus and civil-
dispute-driven to warrant continuation of the prosecution against
the petitioners. This Court is satisfied that the FIR in Crime No.367
of 2023, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is a misuse of the
criminal process and that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
warranted to secure the ends of justice.
Epilogue:
58. The criminal process is a solemn instrument of justice. It
cannot be permitted to become a lever in a battle over land. Where
the allegations disclose genuine criminality, Courts must allow the
law to take its course. But where the accusations are legally
deficient, contextually suspect, and evidently pressed into service in
aid of a civil struggle, the Court must step in. The present case falls
in the latter category. To compel the petitioners to undergo the
24/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
rigours of criminal prosecution on such allegations would be to
convert process into punishment.
59. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The
FIR in Crime No.367 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent police
is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 3
are concerned. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
60. It is, however, made clear that this order is confined to the
quash petition and shall not be construed as an adjudication of title
or possessory rights over the subject property, which shall abide by
appropriate civil proceedings, if any.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
To
1. The Deputy Superindent of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.1689 of 2024
30.04.2026
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
