K.Sabeena v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.7429 and 7431 of 2022 K.Sabeena, : Petitioner Vs 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

Crime No.26/2017.

2. M.Abdul Jabar, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.345 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul District, in Connection with Crime No.26 of 2017, on the file of the Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Dindigul District and quash the same in respect of the 1/7

petitioner as devoid of merits.

For Petitioner : M/s.Prithviraj C, For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.345 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul District 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to money dispute, the petitioner along with other accused person threatened the second respondent. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, the prosecution witnesses have been examined. Now, it was posted for further proceedings.

4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006)6 SCC 736] laid down the principles 2/7

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.

(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.

3/7

(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.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by both the parties and perused the records.

4/7

6.On a perusal of records, it reveals that the petitioner is prosecuted in C.C.No.345 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Further, it is brought to the knowledge of this Court that the prosecution witnesses have been completely examined and now, the case is posted for defence witnesses.

7.On perusal of the charge sheet and the statement of witnesses shows that prima facie an offence and allegation made therein will have to be taken on the face value. If it could not be said that their prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, invoking inherent power, prior to the commencement of trial and leading of evidence, to quash prosecution is not desirable. Power should be exercised only in exceptional cases. Hence, I find no merits in the Criminal Original Petition.

8.At this stage, it cannot be quashed. Therefore, I find no merit in this criminal original petition and the same is dismissed. 9.However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court may be 5/7

dispensed with.

10.I have considered the submission. The personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed, with a condition that she should appear before the trial Court, whenever required by the trial Court for further proceedings.

11.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.06.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lr 6/7

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

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

29.06.2022 7/7