Justice P Murugan refused to quash a case against a lawyer accused of instigating a group of men to attack and threaten another man over an alleged land dispute.

The court noted that merely because the man was an advocate, it could not be held that he could not commit an offence, and an advocate, like any other person, could commit an offence depending upon their conduct and circumstances.

“The fact that the petitioner is an advocate practising before the Court is not disputed by either the prosecuting agency or the second respondent. 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 said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by K Backiyaraj who was accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 109, and 326 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution, when the defacto complainant was walking near Sanangulam Madai Dank Tarn with his wife and two daughters, his brother along with other men came to the sight, abused him in filthy language and attacked him with a stick and hoe. It was alleged that the attack was at the instigation of the petitioner, Backiyaraj, who was later arrayed as the first accused in the case.

The prosecution case was that there exited a civil dispute between the de facto complainant and his brother (second accused) with respect to ancestral property and the current attack was a result of the dispute.

The petitioner argued that the case against him was false and was filed with the sole intention of wreaking vengeance upon him. It was submitted that there was no proof to establish the allegations levelled against him. He thus argued that there was no prima facie case warranting continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any evidence or material.

The petitioner also submitted that he was an Advocate practicing before the High Court and was in no way connected to the case. It was argued that the only allegation made against him was that he had instigated the brother of de facto complainant to commit the crime. He argued that in the absence of any prior motive or enmity, the case against him could not be sustained. He thus sought for quashing the case against him.

The State, on the other hand, argued that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and though he was an advocate, there was no reason for the de facto complainant to give a false complaint against him. The State also argued that any question of previous enmity will have to be established at the time of trial. The State also pointed to the statements made by the witnesses would show that the petitioner had abetted the commission of the offence.

The court, after considering the submissions noted that the question of abetment could not be considered at the stage of quashing and had to be established by the prosecution at the time of trial. The court also considered the statement of the eye witnesses and noted that the same had considerable evidentiary value at the prima facie level. The court thus held that there was every possibility that the petitioner had instigated other accused and abetted them in harming the life of de facto complainant.

Thus, noting that there was a prima facie case, the court was not inclined to quash the case against him. The court held that the petitioner had to face trial but all contentions raised by him could be considered and adjudicated at the time of trial. The court thus dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Anandha Rajagopal

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Susikumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr. K. Jeyamohan

Case Title: K Backiyaraj v The Inspector Of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

Case No: Crl OP (MD) No 4650 of 2024