Madras HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Neighbour Over Alleged Abuse And Assault Of Complainant’s Daughter In Tree-Cutting Dispute

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 399 of 2025, arising from Crime No. 373 of 2023, in which cognizance had been taken of offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute over cutting trees belonging to the petitioner’s family, the petitioner and others quarrelled with and abused the defacto complainant’s daughter and assaulted her.

The petitioner denied the allegations and sought quashing; the prosecution submitted that the trial had commenced, witnesses had been examined, and the victim had received hospital treatment for seven days.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

It applied the principle that, when considering a petition to quash, the Court does not assess the validity or weight of evidence or resolve disputed facts; it examines whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence and whether the prerequisites for cognizance have been met.

Relying on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686; and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, the Court stated that inconsistencies, disputed facts, evidentiary validity, and the accused’s defence are matters for the trial court.

It also referred to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in addressing the limits of the High Court’s power to consider disputed facts.

The Court found that the final report and witness statements contained specific allegations against the petitioner sufficient, at that stage, to attract the charged offences.

The petitioner’s grounds required determination of disputed facts and assessment of evidence, which the Court held could not be undertaken in the quashing proceeding; the allegations’ truth and evidentiary strength were for the trial court to assess.

The Court therefore declined to accept the challenge to the final report or to determine whether the proceedings were malicious before the conclusion of trial.

The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds before the trial court, his personal appearance was dispensed with, and the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months of receiving a copy of the order.