Raja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD) No.7141 of 2022

1. Raja, S/o Ayyavu

2. Thiruppathi,

3. Ranjith,

4. Gobi,

5. Arumugam,

6. Raja, S/o Sekar

7. Soman @ Somasundaram,

8. Pasupathi,

9. Gopal @ Gopala Krishnan,

10. Sundhar @ Shanmuga Sundaram,

11. Sankar,

12. Tamilselvan, 1/9

13. Osaimani,

14. Ramkumar,

15. Venkadesh,

16. Ramesh,

17. Pannerselvam, : Petitioners Vs

1. The State represented through The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Kallal, Sivagangai District.

Crime No.68 of 2022

2. Amala, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the entire records connected with case in Crime No.68 of 2022, on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : M/s.Abdul Rahuman S, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 2/9

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.68 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent. 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2022 and a counter case has also been lodged by the petitioners against the complainant, for which, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.21 of 2022.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that there are two cases registered against the complainant and the accused persons. Based on the complaints given by each other, an FIR has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.68 of 2022 and another FIR has been registered in Crime No.21 of 2022. Both the cases are under investigation.

4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police.

3/9

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006)6 SCC 736] laid down the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings, which are relevant for the present purpose are:- (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.

Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

4/9

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 5/9

6.In the case on hand, a perusal of records, reveal that both the cases are arising out of the occurrence took place on 16.02.2022 and on a perusal of the impugned FIR, it is seen that originally the private complaint was given by the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and the same was taken on file as Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2022 and the same was forwarded to the respondent police for investigation and registering case. Thereafter, the respondent police, after investigation, registered an FIR in Crime No.68 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

7.In view of the above, it is seen that the allegation therein would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the police authority. 8.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and subsequent cases, has held that revisional or inherent powers for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage can be exercised only where the allegations made in the complaint or the first information report, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their 6/9

entirely, do no prima facie disclose the commission of an offence or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, or the allegations are so absurd and inherently improper that on the basis of which no prudent person could have reached a just conclusion that there were sufficient grounds in proceedings against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provisions of the Code or any other statute to the institution and continuance of the criminal proceedings or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly actuated with mala fide and has been initiated maliciously with the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9.The Investigating Agency should have the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. It is not appropriate to quash the complaint since this Court finds no merit in this case. 10.If the allegations made in the First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offences, interference with the investigation is not 7/9

proper, because that amounts to interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offences in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Without thorough investigation, it is not possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not. Hence, the investigation should have been allowed to continue, so that on filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the affected party could pursue its remedy against the final report in accordance with law. 11.Therefore, the police will proceed to complete the investigation fairly on the same expeditious and submit the required final report to the learned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate who shall act in accordance with law.

12.In the light of the above factual and legal positions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.06.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No lr 8/9

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Kallal, Sivagangai District.

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

27.06.2022 9/9