Court holds prima facie case established under IPC Sections 107 and 109; Advocate's status does not grant immunity from trial
In a significant ruling dated August 28, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Dr. P. Murugan, J., dismissed the criminal original petition filed by Advocate K. Backiyaraj seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 109, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with an incident involving assault and criminal intimidation.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the victim, the second respondent, alleging that on May 24, 2021, while he was walking near Sanangulam Madai Dank Tarn with his wife and two daughters, he was unlawfully restrained and assaulted by a group comprising the petitioner and other accused persons. The victim alleged that the petitioner, though an advocate, instigated and abetted the other accused to commit the assault and intimidation.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, motivated by vengeance, and unsupported by any credible evidence or motive, emphasizing that he had no direct involvement in the incident. He argued that the charge of abetment was an afterthought and lacked any substantive material, warranting the quashing of the proceedings against him.
However, the State, supported by the victim's counsel, countered that the FIR and statements of eyewitnesses including the victim's wife and daughters clearly indicated the petitioner's presence at the scene and his role in instigating the assault. The Court noted that the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. from eyewitnesses corroborated the allegation of abetment by the petitioner. The Court underscored that the status of the accused as an advocate does not confer immunity from prosecution if prima facie evidence exists.
Relying on the legal definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and the punishment provision under Section 109 IPC, the Court observed that instigation or intentional aid to commit an offence amounts to abetment. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Omprakash v. State of Haryana (2014) which affirmed that abetment can be established by proving intentional aid or instigation.
The Court held that the allegations of abetment could not be adjudicated at the stage of quashing and required a trial for thorough examination. It found the prima facie material sufficient to proceed with the trial and concluded that the petition to quash the proceedings was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to face trial. The Court also emphasized that all contentions raised by the petitioner could be fully examined and adjudicated during the trial process.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that legal professionals are subject to the same laws as other citizens and that allegations of criminal conduct, including abetment, must be thoroughly investigated through trial rather than being prematurely quashed.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegation of abetment under Section 109 IPC - Prima facie case made out against the petitioner based on FIR and statements of eyewitnesses - Petition dismissed; petitioner to face trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 109, 326, 107, 161(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
K.Backiyaraj v. Inspector of Police, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970379
