Landlord’s Bid to Quash Case Alleging Caste Abuse of Scheduled Caste Tenants Fails; Madras HC Sets Six-Month Trial Deadline

The third respondent, a retired nurse, and her minor daughter lived as tenants in the petitioner’s premises. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner harassed them, including by caste-based abuse, trespass, locking the house, disconnecting electricity, removing household articles and preventing their entry.

Following the third respondent’s complaint, the police registered a case and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. The case was taken on file as S.C. No. 4 of 2025. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, contending that the dispute was a landlord–tenant dispute arising from unpaid rent and that the complaint was false

The Court considered its quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and applied the principle that, at this stage, the Court examines whether the allegations, accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences; it does not assess the sufficiency or validity of the evidence or decide disputed questions of fact.

Relying on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351, and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686, the Court held that witness statements and disputed factual defences are not to be evaluated in quashing proceedings. It also relied on M. Jayanthi v. K.P. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, for the rule that the Court should determine whether the allegations disclose the offences alleged, leaving questions of proof to trial.

The offences identified in the charge sheet included Sections 341 and 448 of the IPC, Sections 3(1)(z) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.

The Court found that the final report and witness statements contained specific allegations against the petitioner, which, on their face, were sufficient to attract the identified offences.

The petitioner’s contention that the complaint was motivated by a rent dispute raised factual matters requiring evidence; deciding whether the allegations were true or malicious would involve an impermissible assessment of disputed facts at the quashing stage. Those matters were therefore left for the trial court.

It directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months from receipt of a copy of the order; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.