JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in S.C.No.384 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and to quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash S.C.No.384 of 2016, pending on the file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crime No.590 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) 324, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, amended by the Act 46 of 1994. 2. The crux of the allegation in the final report is that there is some dispute between the accused and defacto complainant, in respect of the agricultural activities and the petitioner is said to have caused some damage to the water pipe and beating banana trees and caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,500/- and thereby, A.1 to A.3 committed an offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) 324, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (i) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages & Loss) Act, 1994. 3. Heard Mr.N.A.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is an ordinary case of mischief, but the Police had filed a final report, under Section 3 (i) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act. According to him, mischief has been caused by a private individual in a private dispute for which the offence under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act would not be attracted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced a judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.273 of 2008 (LOGU @ LOGANATHAN VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, dated 27/9/2018. A perusal of this judgment shows that for the damage caused in a fight between some individuals, prosecution cannot be launched under Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted under:- “8. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, dated 27/9/2018. A perusal of this judgment shows that for the damage caused in a fight between some individuals, prosecution cannot be launched under Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted under:- “8. The very object of the amendment makes it very clear that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, as stood before the amendment was enacted to prevent damage or loss caused to any private property during political parties or communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities. Originally, there was no provision to make a loss for the private property and also punishment for causing damage to the private property. Therefore, it was decided to include the private property in the amendment. The object of the Act makes it very clear that only during such political party agitations or ethnic agitations, demonstration or other activities or communal clash if any private properties are damaged to fix the liability on such groups, the amendment has been brought in. The object itself is to compensate the loss of the private properties for the damage caused by the said groups. Therefore, I am of the view that ordinary mischief caused by any individual, in a fight, they cannot be brought under Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act. It is a routine practice of the Police to implicate even the individual, who allegedly causes damage of property worth about hundred rupees under Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act. Such practice should be stopped herewith. The object of the Act has to be given preference. Not in every case, Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act can be invoked. Considering the above and also the facts of the case, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused.” 6. Following the above cited judgment, this Court in 2021 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 475 R.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, MANNARGUDI & OTHERS, has also rendered a judgment on similar lines. 7. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of TNPPDL Act, cannot be made applicable to the damage caused to the properties in a dispute between two private parties. 8. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, MANNARGUDI & OTHERS, has also rendered a judgment on similar lines. 7. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of TNPPDL Act, cannot be made applicable to the damage caused to the properties in a dispute between two private parties. 8. In such a view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the offence under TNPPDL Act, which are also the subject matter in S.C.No.384 of 2016, pending on the file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, are quashed. In so far as the other offences, under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem is directed to transfer the case to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, for the remaining offences, under the Indian Penal Code for which charges have already been framed and conduct denovo trial and conclude the same, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.