Hari Gopalakrishnan @ Gopal v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.08.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.8609 & 8611 of 2024 1.Hari Gopalakrishnan @ Gopal 2.Selvi ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Suchindram Police Station, Kanyakumari (In Crime No.311 of 2018) 2.Paulmani ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in impugned charge sheet filed by the first respondent in C.C.No.499 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate(Crl.side) 1/10

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.499 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners received a sum of Rs.1,22,385/- on various occasions from the second respondent, that when she asked to return the amount, the accused persons abused her in filthy language, threatened her with dire consequences and also damaged the household articles and hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint.

3.It is seen from the records that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.311 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(2) IPC, that after completion of investigation, final report came to be filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.499 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2/10

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in the charge sheet are vague, bald and not sufficient to implicate the petitioners in the above case, that the alleged incident had taken place inside the house of the second respondent and that the prosecution does not produced any medical evidence, so as to attract the offence under Section 323 IPC.

5.It is pertinent to note that experiencing pain is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 323 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), the grounds raised/canvassed by the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as reasons/grounds to quash the charge sheet and the same are matter for trial. Except the above, the petitioners have not shown any other valid reason or ground to quash the charge sheet.

6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:- 3/10

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or 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 a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the 4/10

Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, 5/10

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7)where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7.In Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide but at the same time, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. 8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (3) Crimes 247 has stated that, that Court in catena of decisions has observed that the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the 6/10

merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial and that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie materials, if any, requiring no proof and at such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and materials relied on.

9.A cursory perusal of the final report and the statements filed along with the final report would make it clear that there existed a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, this Court concludes that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would request that the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court may be dispensed with. 11.Considering the above, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is ordered to be dispensed with, on conditions that they shall appear at the time of initial questioning, 7/10

proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment and on all the hearings, specifically directed by the trial court. The petitioners are further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that they will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and that the counsel representing them will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event their presence is insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioners adopt any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

12.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns 8/10

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Suchindram Police Station, Kanyakumari.

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

9/10

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

gns 27.08.2024 10/10