Muthukumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9215 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3993 of 2018 1.Muthukumar 2.Gengai Adithan ... Petitioners / A1 & A2 vs.

1.The State rep.by its Inspector of Police Sattankulam Police Station Thoothukudi District Cr.No.94 of 2018 ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Muniyandi Special Sub Inspector of Police Sattankulam Police Station Sattankulam, Thoothukudi District ... 2nd Respondent / De facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal original petition filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining in Cr.No.94 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same. For Petitioners :

Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent-1 :

Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate(Criminal Side) for R1

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.94 of 2018 , on the file of the first respondent Police.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are having valid permission from the competent Authority to transport pond sand, however the first respondent - Police has registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2018 as against the petitioners as if they had illegally transported pond sand without any valid permission. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.94 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent, are liable to be quashed.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners transported pond sand without any valid permission from the competent Authority and therefore, the first respondent has rightly registered a case as against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

5. After hearing both side and perusing the materials placed on record, it is seen that the proceedings in Crime No.94 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent - Police, are at the stage of investigation. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] , the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down certain parameters for quashing an F.I.R. Following the same, in the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2646, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court should not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide has 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. The facts of the present case do not pass muster the law laid down in the above cited Judgments. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case, wherein the F.I.R., can be quashed.

6. In the result, the criminal original petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to place all the documents before the first respondent to establish their case that they are having valid permission from the competent authority to transport pond sand at the time of investigation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police, Sattankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

+ 1 CC TO MrT.A.EBENEZER, ADVOCATE IN SR No.68194 KRK RJ/TE/SAR-3 : 11/07/2018 : 2P/4C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9215 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3993 of 2018 13.06.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/