Kalil Raguman v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1786 and 1787 of 2023 Kalil Raguman, : Petitioner Vs

1. State represented byThe Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No. 116 of 2020.

2. Surjith Senji, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records of charge sheet in S.T.C No. 904 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nihar Ali For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/8

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C No. 904 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2022 at about 07.00 pm, when the injured was proceeding in Natham to Dindigul Road from South to North, a two-wheeler, which came from West to East, dashed against the pedestrian and caused the accident. After conducting the investigation, the first respondent has laid the final report for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC.

3.The main contention of the petitioner is that the two-wheeler is a battery fitted vehicle and it is practically not possible to drive with high speed.

4.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the said aspects cannot be gone into now.

2/8

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

3/8

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the 4/8

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

6. In Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide but at the same time, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (3) Crimes 247 has stated that, that 5/8

Court in catena of decisions has observed that the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial and that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie materials, if any, requiring no proof and at such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and materials relied on.

8. A cursory perusal of the charge sheet and the statements filed along with the charge sheet, makes out a prima facie case against the accused. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.904 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 03.02.2023 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No lr 6/8

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

K.MURALI SHANKAR , J.

lr 03.02.2023 8/8