K. Adhithan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7176 of 2019

1. K. Adhithan

2. Muniyasamy,

3. Vivek ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 -Vs1.The Inspector of Police Keelakarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District (Crime No.13/2017).

... Respondent No1/Complainant 2 Kaleeshwaran ... Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.13 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi G.A., for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.13 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017 on the file of the first respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondent police. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2019 at 05.00 pm, the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the first respondent police that the petitioners tied an oxen to a stoned studded in ground and near about 25 person tried to tame the oxen and caused hard to the animal (Erudhukattu) behind Arulmigu Kannankovil Kanjirakudi. On the basis of the above said allegations, the first respondent police registered the complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 IPC and 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in Crime No. 13 of 2017. The said F.I.R. is under challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.

1/6

4.According to the petitioner, the petitioners are 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 IPC and 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as against the petitioners. Therefore, they sought for quashing the proceeding.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgement in Mahaboob Basha Vs. Sambanda Reddiar and others reported in 1994(1) Crimes, Page 477. He also relied upon a judgment in a batch of quash petitions, reported in 2018-2-L.W. (Crl.) 606 in Crl.O.P. (MD)No. 1356 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018 in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur District, and this Court held in Paragraph-25, as follows :- "25.In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned:

a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC. c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC.

d) In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public servant concerned should reflect the following ingredients namely;

2/6

i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;

ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it;

iii) that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed;

and iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to cause;

(a) obstruction,annoyance or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or (b) danger to human life, health or safety; or c) a riot or affray.

e) The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police.

f) The promulgation through which, the order is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation. g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners have attempted to to tame the oxen and caused hard to the animal (Erudhukattu) behind Arulmigu Kannankovil Kanjirakudi without any permission in prohibited area, while prohibitory order 3/6

was in force and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the investigation. 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.

7.Perused the material documents available on record. 8.On perusal of the F.I.R, it is seen that the petitioners tied an oxen to a stoned studded in ground and near about 25 person tried to tame the oxen and caused hard to the animal (Erudhukattu) behind Arulmigu Kannankovil Kanjirakudi, without any permission in prohibited area, while prohibitory order was in force. Therefore the respondent police levelled the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 IPC and 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as against the petitioners. 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. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, 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.

9.The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case Sections 143, 188, 289 IPC and 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, registered by the respondent is permissible under law or not. In this regard it is 4/6

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.

10. In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 289 IPC and 22 of the 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 First Information Report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. 11.Accordingly, the F.I.R, in Crime No.13 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) 5/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police Keelakarai 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-94194[F] dated 24/10/2019 ) 22.10.2019 ls MK (12.11.2019) 6P 4C 6/6