Alla Bakash v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7254 of 2022 Alla Bakash ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Trichy.

2.Rehanghouse Khan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the FIR as illegal which was registered as Crime No.880 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Mohamed Abbas For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff 1/9

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.880 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the disputed property belongs to the Wakf Board. He further submitted that the entire allegations against the petitioner are false. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after registering the case, the first respondent Police has investigated the matter and visited the place of occurrence and prepared sketch and noted the damaged portion and the same was produced before this court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition. 4.I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the first respondent police.

2/9

5.On perusal of the materials available on records, it is seen that the case in Crime No.880 of 2022 has been registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b), 448, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and the same is under investigation. On perusal of the sketch prepared by the respondent Police, it shows that some portion of the disputed property, gate and compound wall were damaged and investigation has to be conducted to find out the truth. At this stage, it is inappropriate to quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds no merit to entertain this petition. 6.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.

3/9

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.

(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. 4/9

(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.

7.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 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 5/9

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 vengenance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8.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.

9.If the allegations made in the First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offences, interference with the investigation is not 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 6/9

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. 10.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.

11.In the light of the above factual and legal positions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Further, during the enquiry, the first respondent Police is directed not to harass the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

11.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsg 7/9

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Trichy.

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

8/9

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsg ORDER IN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7254 of 2022 11.07.2022 9/9