The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of allegedly instigating other accused persons to assault and criminally intimidate a man during a dispute between two families.
Justice Dr. P. Murugan held that the First Information Report (FIR) and witness statements disclosed a prima facie case - meaning there was enough material at this stage for the case to proceed to trial.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident alleged to have taken place on May 24, 2021, near Sanangulam Madai in Sivagangai District. The complainant was walking with his wife and two daughters when, according to the FIR, accused Nos. 2 to 6 allegedly restrained and assaulted him with sticks and a hoe.
The complainant had an existing civil dispute with accused No. 2 concerning ancestral property. The petitioner, K. Backiyaraj, was arrayed as accused No. 1 and was alleged to have instigated the other accused to carry out the assault. A charge sheet was subsequently filed in C.C. No. 33 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, invoking Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 109 and 326 of the IPC.
Backiyaraj approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings against him. His counsel argued that there was no specific material showing that he had abetted the alleged acts and that the accusation was based mainly on statements made by the complainant and his family members.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the petitioner’s status as an advocate did not give him any special protection from criminal proceedings.
“Though the petitioner is an advocate, the mere fact that he is an advocate cannot be a ground to hold that he cannot commit any offence. An advocate, like any other person, may commit an offence depending upon his conduct and the circumstances of the case.”
The Court then examined the FIR and statements of the complainant and three eyewitnesses. It found that the materials consistently alleged that the petitioner was present at the scene and had instigated the other accused.
Justice Murugan also referred to Section 107 IPC, which explains abetment through acts such as instigation, conspiracy or intentional assistance. The Court observed that the question of whether the alleged abetment was actually proved could not be conclusively decided at the stage of considering a quashing petition.
Decision
The High Court held that the FIR and statements of the witnesses prima facie disclosed the petitioner’s alleged involvement. It therefore found no sufficient ground to terminate the proceedings before trial.
The Court observed:
“The petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the proceedings. Hence, the quash petition is liable to be dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, with both parties directed to bear their own costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Backiyaraj v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4650 of 2024
Judge: Justice Dr. P. Murugan
Decision Date: August 28, 2026
