Rajkumar @ Ramkumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7395 of 2022 Rajkumar @ Ramkumar, : Petitioner Vs
1. State through The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No. 576 of 2016).
2. Arumugam, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the FIR in Crime No. 576 of 2016 dated 27.11.2016, on the file of the first respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : M/s.Prabhu K, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/8
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.576 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the first accused person in Crime No.576 of 2016. Since there is no specific allegation attributed in the complaint, the criminal proceedings in FIR can be quashed.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil and the same is not taken on file. Further he stated that the accused persons threatened the complainant. Hence, it has to be tried, then only the disputed fact can be decided. Therefore, he pleaded 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) 2/8
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. (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, 3/8
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 proceedings. The test is whether the 4/8
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
6.I have considered the submissions made by both the parties. 7.On a perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant is working as a labour at a bar. On 27.11.2016, the petitioner and others were at inebriated stage, used filthy language and shouted in the bar. They were also informed not to shout there. But, they threatened the complainant. Hence the complaint.
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 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 5/8
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.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 6/8
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.
01.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr 7/8
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr To 1.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER IN 01.07.2022 8/8