CHENNAI: Observing that every blameworthy conduct is not an offence, Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a criminal original petition against Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker M Thambidurai’s wife, seeking to register a FIR against her on charges of criminal intimidation.
PG Saleem and two others approached the High Court submitting that they are owners of small patches of land surrounding a private educational institution in suburban Avadi, run by T Banumathi, wife of Thambidurai. They alleged that the compound wall of the college was built in such a way to block free access to their land.
“Banumathi, misusing her husband’s official position, is trying to grab our properties,” said the petitioners. But contrary to their allegation, the local police filed a status report stating that after conducting due enquires, they have closed the complaints on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence to register an FIR.
It was further revealed that there were two other civil suits pending before the Sub Judge, Poonamallee on the same issue. After perusal of the records submitted, Justice PN Prakash, before whom the petition came up for hearing said, “Even according to the petitioners, they are not in possession of the said properties, therefore there is no question of Banumathi forcibly dispossessing them from the property.”
On the contention that access to petitioners’ properties has been blocked by the compound wall of the college, the judge said, “The petitioners have purchased the properties knowing well that it is land-locked. The compound wall has been built for the security of students and it is blocking only the northern side of the property.”
Replying to the petitioners submission that the act of the college in blocking access would fall within in the meaning of section 341 (wrongful restraint) of IPC, the judge said, “This court is unable to countenance this submission. For, to constitute offence under the section, it is necessary that the person who alleges should have been restrained by the accused.” Noting that the complaint neither discloses the date nor the name of the person who intimidated the complainant, the judge dismissed the petition.