A.Anbudhurai v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.12230 of 2022 and CRL.M.P(MD) No.7740 of 2022 1.A.Anbudhurai 2.A.Kaamalanehru ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, Trichirapalli.

2.Raju @ Maya ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 412 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent dated 02.07.2021 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For 1st Respondent: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/8

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.412 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that according to the allegation in the First Information Report, the occurrence took place on 26.06.2021 at about 04.30 p.m. But the complaint was given only on 02.07.2021. He further submitted that the First Information Report itself is with false allegation and there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report and hence, he prayed to quash the First Information Report.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that in Crime No.412 of 2021, the investigation has been completed and the final report has been made ready and the first respondent is ready to file the same before the concerned Court. 2/8

4.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.

3/8

(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.

4/8

5.On perusal of the materials available on records, the facts reveal that the occurrence took place on 26.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m, but, the complaint was given only on 02.07.2021. After the delay of some considered period, the First Information Report has been registered by the first respondent. But, there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it has to be decided only before the trial Court by examining evidence and Investigating Officer. Further, in this case, the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed and the first respondent is ready to file the same before the concerned Court. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be decided, while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P.Kapur v.

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. 7.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.

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

07.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, Trichirapalli.

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

7/8

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsg ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.12230 of 2022 and CRL.M.P(MD) No.7740 of 2022 07.07.2022 8/8