1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7745 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 1.A.Selvaraj 2.S.Boothathar 3.A.K.Mariyappan 4.Chaiman @ Arunachalam 5.S.Kandasamy 6.C.Thangaraj 7.N.Chellappa @ Sankaralingam 8.Murugaiah 9.C.Kasi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 9 Vs. Muthusamy ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the order in C.C.No.167 of 2010 dated 06.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Moorthy O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the private complaint, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 109, 147, 451, 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(i) I.P.C. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly, the occurrence had taken place inside the house of the respondent and therefore, no offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. can be made out, as the occurrence did not take place in public place. He further submitted that as per the complaint given by the respondent, the accused alleged to have kicked the complainant and assaulted the others by hand and there was no corresponding injury and even according to the complaint, the respondent took treatment for the injury in his house itself as the injury is simple in nature and therefore no offence is made out under Section 323 I.P.C. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2000(2) MWN (Crl.)7 (Jayapaul & Ors. V. State by Inspector of Police, R-3 Ashok Nagar P.S., Madras) and also the another judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 251 (Irulayee and Others Vs. State rep. by Sub- Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District). 3. He further submitted that the accused went to the house of the respondent and there was a civil dispute between the parties and therefore, no case has been made out for the offence under Sections 451, 355 and 506(i) I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, after recording the sworn statement of the respondent and the wife of the defacto complainant, took up the case on file against the petitioners for offences under Sections 109, 147, 451, 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(i) I.P.C. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent spent Rs.30 Lakhs for constructing a community hall and the accused refused to pay the amount and when the respondent demanded the said amount, the occurrence had taken place and as per the complaint, on 16.01.2010 all the accused trespassed into the house of the respondent and threatened him and kicked him and also abused the wife of the respondent and assaulted others and threatening that they will burn the respondent alive. 5. According to me, the allegations made in the complaint primafacie make out a case for offences under Sections 109, 147, 451, 323, 355 and 506(i) I.P.C and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the case for the aforesaid offences and there is no infirmity in taking cognizance. Hence, I do not find any merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar TO, The Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai vsm GH : 11.07.2011 : 2p/2c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7745 of 2011 28.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/