1. The petitioner herein arrayed as 2 nd accused in P.R.C.No.59 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-V, Coimbatore, seeking quash of the final report.

2. The brief facts of the case is that one, Mr.Thangavel informed the respondent police on 22.11.2014 that three sons of Chinnasamy trespassed into his land with JCB and demolished the building which is under construction. Hence, case was registered in Crime No.589 of 2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (herein after referred as “TNPPDL Act 1992”) as against three sons of Chinnasamy and Section 294(b), 447 of I.P.C and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 against the wife of Chinnasamy.

3. After completion of investigation, filed report filed and same was taken on file under P.R.C.No.14 of 2018. The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 2 nd accused shown as absconding accused, case against him was split up and numbered as P.R.C.No.59 of 2019.

4. In the quash petition, it is contended that, there was a property dispute between the defacto complainant and the family members of the petitioner. Mr.Chinnasamy, father of the petitioner gave power of attorney to the defacto complainant in respect of the property measuring one acre and later died. The petitioner herein, after his father demise, misusing the power of attorney deed, the defacto complainant trying to grab the property in this regard. Suit was filed by Chinnasamy, however same was dismissed, on his demise. Thereafter, fresh suit has been filed by the petitioner's mother who is the 4 th accused and suit in O.S.No.1025 of 2013 is pending on the file of 1 st Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore. While so, in the disputed land, alleging that, the construction put up by the defacto complainant was demolished on the evening of 21.11.2014, a complaint was lodged and same has been taken up for investigation and final report filed with truncated facts.

5. According to the petitioner, the alleged act of demolishing the construction of the defacto complainant will not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, since the damage was not committed during procession, assembly, meeting and other similar activates. Further, he would also contend that alleged time of occurrence, the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence, in fact, was in UAE.

6. In view of this Court, the ground raised by the petitioner that provision of TNPPDL Act, 1992 will not get attracted for the above said offence is per se untenable.

Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, reads as below:-

3. Punishment for committing mischief in respect of [property]. - Whoever,-

(i) Commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any [property] and thereby causes damage or loss to such [property] to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards; or

(ii) commits mischief by doing any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water to the public or to any person for any purpose or an inundation of, or obstruction to, any public drainage, or

(iii) commits mischief by doing any act which renders any public road, bridge, navigable channel, natural or artificial impassable or less safe for traveling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine:

Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.

7. On reading of the provision, it is clear that, it is not necessary that damage to the public property should be caused only in the course of meeting, assembly or procession. Even otherwise, if the material is available that any property damaged as an act of vandalism, it is punishable under Section 3 of TNPDDL, 1992.

8. As far as plea of 'alibi' is concerned, the petitioner states that he was not present at the scene of occurrence on alleged date of occurrence. The travel documents of the petitioner was placed before this Court for consideration.

9. In Darshan Singh -vs- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 3 SCC 37 [LQ/SC/2016/17] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that,

“17. The word alibi means "elsewhere". The plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code. It is a rule of evidence recognized Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused.”

10. Alibi is a defence for the accused which has to be proved in the manner known to law during trial. In this case, the genuineness of the travel documents has to be tested. Mere production of Airline ticket and passport without testing the veracity of the document and the content is not adequate to quash the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court cannot embark upon testing the evidence while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner herein to seek appropriate recourse before the Court below, before framing of charge, by producing the documents in support of plea of 'alibi' and file petition. If such petition is filed, the trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

11. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.