Sundararaj 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.7177 of 2022 1.Sundararaj 2.Sakthivel 3.Muthukumar ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, Karivalamvandanallur, Tenkasi District.
(In Crime No.122 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Chithiravelu ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the above First Information Report in Crime No.122 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karivalamvandanallur Police Station, Tenkasi District and quash he same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Malaiyendran For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/8
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.122 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to civil dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant on 14.03.2022 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioners have gone to the defacto complainant's garden and attacked him and also prevented him from proceeding further. When the same was questioned by him, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case has been registered in Crime No.122 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The third petitioner, namely, Muthukumar is physically handicapped person with 60% disability and he is unable to move. But he was implicated in this case. The first petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil against the defacto complainant and the same is pending. Therefore, he prays for quashing the said F.I.R.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the investigation has been completed and 2/8
charge sheet has also been filed on 26.0.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.
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.
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.
3/8
(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.
(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 4/8
proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 6.In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.122 of 2022 shows that the case has been registered in Crime No.122 of 2022 on 15.03.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The fact reveals the commission of offence and further in this case, the respondent police has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this petition. 7.On perusal of impugned F.I.R, 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.
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 vengenance 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.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 vsd 6/8
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Karivalamvandanallur, Tenkasi District.
2.Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsd and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7177 of 2022 27.06.2022 8/8