K.Shahul Hameed v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD)No.8410 of 2022
1. K.Shahul Hameed,
2. K.Istak Ali,
3. K.Abdul Kather,
4. V.Mohamed Rafshan Sulthar @ Rabsan
5. Mohamed Thanveer @ Thanveer,
6. Vava Maideen,
7. M.Ramesh Raja @ Ramis Raja,
8. Syed Abduthahir.Y @ Aputhakir,
9. A.Ramesh Raja Hussain @ Ramis Raja Usain
10. Y.Nasreen Banu @ Nasrin,
11. Balgis Beevi,
12. Rajab Nisha @ Rajap, : Petitioners 1/9
Vs
1. State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
(Crime No. 154 of 2022).
2. M.Abdul Harim, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in the First Information Report in Crime No. 154 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the First Information Report.
For Petitioner : M/s. Selvan.T, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 154 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that due to money dispute, they attacked 2/9
the defacto complainant with slipper and wooden reaper and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that a complaint was received from the victim, by post. On receiving the same, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.154 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(1) IPC. The investigation is under progress. Since the complainant is injured, it is inappropriate to quash the FIR in Crime No.154 of 2022. Further, he pleaded to dismiss this petition.
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 3/9
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.
(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, 4/9
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.
6.On a perusal of records, it reveals the fact that the complainant was worked at Soudhi Arabia and sent his earned money to his wife's brother/first petitioner. When he returned to India and demanded the money and jewels, the first petitioner didn't give proper answer. Then, the 5/9
petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with slipper and wooden reaper and caused injuries to him. Hence, he sent a complaint through post and for the same, investigation is in progress. 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.
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 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 7/9
could pursue its remedy against the final report in accordance with law. 11.Therefore, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr ORDER IN 22.07.2022 9/9