← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11460/2019allowed

K. Adhithan v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-10-01Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7184 of 2019 K.Adhithan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police Keezhakarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.121 of 2018) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Rajeshwari, Tahsildar, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District.

...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2018, dated 06.09.2018 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.121 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 on the file of the first respondent, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2018 the accused, who is the President of Erudhukattu Peravai and others conducted Vadamadu Erudhukattu Vizha on Krishna Jayanthi Festival in Yadhava Street, Krishnapuram, Kanjirankudi Village, Keelakarai without following the norms laid down in the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.14616 of 2017, dated 04.08.2017. On the basis of the above said allegations, the respondent police registered the complaint against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in Crime No.121 of 2018. The said F.I.R. is under 1/4

challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is an innocent. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never disturbed public, public tranquility and peace and there is no evidence that the petitioner caused damages to the public property. The petitioner unaware about the order of the Commissioner of Police regarding banning the demonstration. On precautionary measures, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as against the petitioner. Therefore, they sought for quashing the proceeding.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner and others have attempted to stage demonstration in Yadhava Street, Krishnapuram, Kanjirankudi Village, Keelakarai, without any permission in prohibited area, while prohibitory order was in force and there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. Further, he would submit that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 195 (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. On perusal of the F.I.R, it is seen that the petitioner has attempted to stage demonstration in Yadhava Street, Krishnapuram, Kanjirankudi Village, Keelakarai, without any permission in prohibited area, while prohibitory order was in force. Therefore the respondent police levelled the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as against the petitioner. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial. Section 188 reads as follows: "188.

annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

7. The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, registered by the first respondent is permissible under law or not. In this regard it is relevant to extract Section 195 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :- "195.Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts hall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;..."

Therefore, it is very clear that for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance.

8. In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 of IPC., and Section 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the petitioner and others have attempted to stage demonstration in prohibited area and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, the F.I.R, in Crime No.121 of 2018, on the 3/4

file of the first respondent, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (w) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vsd To 1.The Inspector of Police Keezhakarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.T. LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-91079[F] dated 03/10/2019 ) and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7184 of 2019 01.10.2019 KK/SAR/24.10.2019/4P-4C/ 4/4