K.Muthukumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM and Crl.M.P(MD)No.8093 of 2022 K.Muthukumar, : Petitioner Vs
1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar District-626 130.
2. Amudhapushpam, : Respondents 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. 173 of 2022 dated 18/06/2022 on the file of first respondent police and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : M/s. Sakthirao.G, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/9
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 173 of 2022, on the file of first respondent police. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, on 28.02.2022, a complaint has been given by the complainant in petition No. 79 of 2022, which was closed by the respondent police. Then, the petitioner lodged a complaint, for the same, an FIR in Crime No.173 of 2022 has been registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He further stated that the ingredients for the said Sections are not made out and pleaded to quash the FIR.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that since the defacto complainant had not given sufficient evidence for entrusting jewels to the accused person, the previous complaint received from the her has been closed. Now, the defacto complainant gave evidence to the respondent police and also lodged a fresh complaint. Hence, an FIR in Crime No. 173 of 2022 has been registered 2/9
only on 18.06.2022. Further stated that the matter is under investigation and at this initial stage, it is inappropriate to quash the FIR.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 3/9
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, 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 4/9
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.In the case on hand, a perusal of records, it reveals that three years ago, the defacto complainant worked at Graham Match Works Limited at Thiruthangal. At that time, the petitioner along with one Pitchaikanni came to her house and sought loan for the treatment of the petitioner's wife. The complainant stated that she had no money. Hence, they asked her jewels and promised to return the jewels. Believing that, she handed over her ten sovereigns of jewels on 03.06.2018 and further seven sovereigns of jewels on 10.01.2019. But, the petitioner did not returned the same. Hence the complaint.
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. 5/9
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 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 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.
7/9
12.In the light of the above factual and legal positions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr To
1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar District-626 130.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr ORDER IN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7094 of 2022 18.07.2022 9/9