Madras High Court: The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, which had dismissed his application seeking discharge from all charges. The allegations against him pertained to offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (‘TNPPDL Act’), involving trespass into the complainant’s school and damage to the Mahatma Gandhi statue located within the premises. A Single Judge Bench of G. K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., while allowing the petition set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, which had dismissed a petition seeking discharge from criminal charges. The Court emphasised that the subject land was a private property, and the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was not at all attracted for any damage caused to private property.
Background:
The prosecution alleged that on 26-03-2017, the petitioner trespassed into the complainant’s school, National Elementary School at Nagapattinam District, and damaged the Mahatma Gandhi statue within the premises. Based on the complaint, an FIR for offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was registered. After investigation, a final report filed, which was taken cognizance by the Trial Court. While the case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed a discharge petition, which was dismissed, leading to the present revision.
The petitioner submitted that the final report was filed for offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, but no charges were made out. It was alleged that Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act applied to public property, and the subject property was private, not government owned. Therefore, the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was not attracted. For Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, prior sanction was required before filing the final report, which was not obtained. It was contended that, regarding Section 448 of IPC, the property was owned by the petitioner, who had obtained a decree of injunction confirmed by the Supreme Court. Hence, there was no trespass, and the petitioner was free to remove obstructions lawfully.
It was also submitted that for the same incident, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant, which was registered for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. However, the final report was filed only against the petitioner without following the procedure under Section 588A of the Madras Police Standing Order (‘Police Standing Order’), thereby vitiating the proceedings.
Contrarily, the State argued that the petitioner trespassed into the complainant’s property and damaged the Mahatma Gandhi statue, attracting charges under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. It was contended that sanction could be obtained at any stage and was a curable defect. The allegations were purely criminal, not civil, and a detailed investigation had been conducted. Hence, the final report was rightly taken cognizance of by the trial Court, and the discharge petition was correctly dismissed.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the petitioner was the sole accused, and he was facing charges for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 448, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The Court noted that the Trial Court, while exercising the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the final report filed by the prosecution, should not have acted like a post master that received the final report from the Police and blindly proceeded to frame charges on the premise that the final report would be perfect in all respects. The Court further emphasised that the Trial Court ought to have seen whether the materials produced along with the final report attracted any charges or not.
The Court emphasised that a civil dispute had been pending between the complainant and the petitioner’s father over a landlord and tenant issue, wherein the complainant’s school, tenant of the property at Nagapattinam District, paid rent until 2014 and then stopped. The Court observed that the land was under acquisition, which the petitioner’s father successfully challenged, leading to the proceedings being dropped under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court noted that earlier the petitioner had obtained a decree for permanent injunction, confirmed by Appellate Courts. Thus, the complainant had no right, title, or possession and was restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s family’s peaceful enjoyment of the property.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner’s father filed an execution petition due to violation of a Court order, which was partly allowed by attaching the school management’s immovable properties while withholding detention of school authorities. The Court observed that the complainant’s school challenged this, but their petition was dismissed and later confirmed by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the school continued attempts to trespass, and to prevent further trespass, the petitioner put up a temporary compound wall around the property.
The Court observed that the petitioner was granted police protection and constructed a ready-made wall early in the morning, but the complainant and school management damaged it and abused the petitioner with filthy language. The Court further noted that the petitioner lodged a complaint, and a case was registered but not investigated. Instead, based on the complainant’s complaint, another FIR was registered, and a final report was filed without following the required procedure under the Police Station Order.
The Court further analysed Sections 3(1) and 2(b) of the TNPPDL Act and observed that the subject property either belonged to the petitioner or the complainant. Therefore, it was a private property, and the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was not at all attracted for any damage caused to the private property.
The Court emphasised that prior sanction under Section 196 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CRPC’) was required to prosecute under Section 505(1)(b) IPC, even for investigation, and without it, no charge could be made. The Court noted that statements under Section 161(3) CrPC did not mention any specific overt act by the petitioner, and witnesses only stated that others trespassed and damaged the statue on his instructions. Yet, the case was registered solely against the petitioner under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, despite the complainant’s own statement that multiple persons were involved.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner’s father had obtained a decree for permanent injunction over the property, and the complainant and her school were tenants under him, already facing contempt proceedings for violating the Civil Court’s order. The Court further noted that no one specifically stated the petitioner himself trespassed or damaged the statue and with no material to support the charges, the Trial Court should not have dismissed the discharge petition, and its order was liable to be set aside.
The Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 15-02-2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, and ordered that the petitioner be discharged from all the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The Court further directed the Trial Court to close the case against the petitioner.
[S. Vinayak v. State of Madras, Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2023, decided on 28-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K. Balu, R. Ganesan
For the Respondent: A. Gopinath, Government Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
