Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8650/2017dismissed

S.P.M.Jamal Mydeen, v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

2017-07-10Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.8650 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.(MD)No.5838 of 2017 S.P.M.Jamal Mydeen ... Petitioner -Vs1. State rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai City.

2. P.Dilip Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records in Crime No.141 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, and quash the same against the petitioners.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed only to quash the complaint in Crime No.141 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.

3. A case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.141 of 2017 under Sections 447, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., on the file of the first respondent police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the complaint, no offence could be inferred against the petitioner.

The second respondent, namely, the defacto complainant suppressed the real facts of the case and he has given false complaint to harass and torture the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already given the complaint against the respondent police and the defacto complainant before the Vigilance. It is only to take revenge against the petitioner, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

defacto complainant and the respondent police has preferred the false complaint.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are seriously considered.

6. First of all, the complaint makes out the case attracting the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 387 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The issue of mala fide cannot be decided only based on affidavit. Unless the defacto complainant produce some material or establish motive for foisting the case against the petitioner, it is not possible at this stage to decide that the complaint has been registered against the petitioner with motive.

7. The contention of the petitioner that the complaint is false and that the defacto complainant has given the false complaint, by suppressing the real fact, cannot be considered at this stage. The factual contentions are all matters of evidence and the investigation cannot be stopped on the basis of self serving statements. It cannot be concluded at this stage that the petitioner was implicated as an accused just to prevent the petitioner to take any further action against the defacto complainant. At any stage, it cannot be taken that the complaint is an abuse process of law. Absolutely there is no merits in the case and no interference by this Court at this stage.

8. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Sub Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai City.

+2cc to Mr.K.Gokul, Advocate Sr.No.64834 &64284 PMU VB/SV/SAR4/20.07.2017/2P/4C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.8650 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.(MD)No.5838 of 2017 10.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/