Madras High Court Discharges Accused in Gandhi Statue Damage Case | Holds TNPPDL Act Inapplicable to Private Property and IPC Charges Unsustainable Without Sanction or Overt Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, which had dismissed a petition seeking discharge from criminal charges. The Court discharged the petitioner from all offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, directing the trial court to close the case pending against him.
The proceedings arose out of a criminal case registered on 26 March 2017. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had allegedly trespassed into the premises of a school situated at Pudareegakulam, Vadakarai, Nagapattinam District. Within the school premises stood a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, which the prosecution alleged had been damaged by the petitioner. A First Information Report was registered by the Nagapattinam Town Police in Crime No.145 of 2017, citing offences under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (TNPPDL Act). Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the matter was taken cognizance of in Sessions Case No.152 of 2018.
While the case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner moved a petition seeking discharge, arguing that the charges were unsustainable. The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the discharge petition on 15 February 2023, leading to the present criminal revision case filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court.
The petitioner contended that no prima facie case was made out. It was submitted that the alleged damage pertained to property of a private nature and therefore the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was inapplicable. Further, it was argued that prosecution under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC required prior sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC, which had not been obtained before the filing of the final report. Regarding the charge of criminal trespass under Section 448 IPC, the petitioner asserted ownership over the disputed land, supported by a decree of injunction that had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Consequently, it was argued that no trespass could be alleged on the petitioner’s own property.
The petitioner further contended that he had also lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant concerning the same incident, registered as Crime No.156 of 2017, but no investigation was pursued. It was alleged that the police had proceeded solely against the petitioner without following mandatory procedures under the Police Standing Orders.
The State, through the Government Advocate, maintained that the petitioner had trespassed into the school premises and damaged the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, thereby attracting the provisions invoked in the charge sheet. It was argued that any defect relating to sanction for prosecution under Section 505(1)(b) IPC could be cured at a later stage. The prosecution emphasized that the dispute was not civil in nature but constituted a criminal offence supported by sufficient material in the investigation records.
The judgment records extensive civil litigation history between the parties. The school management, functioning as a tenant, had deposited rent under judicial orders until 2014, after which payments ceased. The land itself had been subjected to acquisition proceedings, which were later quashed by the High Court under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner’s father had obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S. No.174 of 1986, confirmed successively by the first appellate court, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. Execution proceedings followed, including attachment of school property for disobedience of the injunction order.
Despite these orders, disputes over possession persisted, and police protection was granted to the petitioner in March 2017 to erect a compound wall on the disputed property. It was in this context, while constructing the wall under police protection, that altercations arose, leading to allegations of abuse and damage to the Gandhi statue. While the petitioner’s complaint against the school was registered but not pursued, the school’s complaint resulted in prosecution against the petitioner.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan examined the materials on record and the legal provisions invoked.The Court recorded that the trial court, while taking cognizance, “shall not act like a post master that receives the final report from the Police and blindly proceed to frame charges.” Instead, it was incumbent upon the trial court to ascertain whether the materials produced with the final report attracted the offences alleged.
On the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, the Court stated: “Admittedly, the subject property either belongs to the petitioner or the defacto complainant. Therefore, it is a private property and the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is not at all attracted for any damage caused to the private property.”
Regarding Section 505(1)(b) IPC, the Court observed: “In order to prosecute the person for the charge under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, prior sanction even for investigating the accused is required as contemplated under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. Without prior sanction, the first respondent ought not to have filed final report. Therefore, no charge can be made without sanction.”
The Court further noted discrepancies in the witness statements, recording that: “No one has spoken about the specific overt act as against the petitioner. All have stated that on instructions of the petitioner, other persons trespassed into the subject property and caused damage to the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. However, the case itself was registered only against the petitioner and not against anybody.”
On the allegation of trespass under Section 448 IPC, the Court recorded: “The petitioner’s father obtained decree in his favour in respect of the subject property for permanent injunction. The defacto complainant and her school are the tenants under the petitioner’s father. In fact, the defacto complainant and her school is facing contempt proceedings for violation of the order passed by the civil Court. As stated supra, no one has spoken about the specific overt act of the petitioner as if he trespassed into the property and caused damage to the Mahatma Gandhi statue.”
In conclusion, the Court held: “In the absence of any material to attract any of the charges against the petitioner, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition to discharge the petitioner and it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”
The Court set aside the order dated 15 February 2023 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.152 of 2018. The High Court categorically ordered: “The petitioner is discharged from all the charges in S.C.No.152 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 505(1)(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The trial Court is directed to close the case in S.C.No.152 of 2018 as against the petitioner.”
Consequently, the criminal revision petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Balu for Mr. R. Ganesan
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Case Title: S. Vinayak v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station
Case Number: Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2023
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
