S.Pandirathinam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.01.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.759 of 2023 S.Pandirathinam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State through The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.169 of 2022) 2.Sindhu ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.169 of 2022 on the file of Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For R1 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/10

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records in Crime No.169 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/ defacto complainant received a phone call informing her that on 11.09.2022 at about 08.30 p.m. a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-57-W-2197 driven by her husband met with an accident with the Government bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-1247.

3. The petitioner, who is the sole accused, is facing charges for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC.

4. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.169 of 2022 on 12.09.2022 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the petitioner.

2/10

5. The second respondent has lodged a complaint stating she came to know about the accident involving the two wheeler and the Government bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-1247 and due to that accident, her husband had died on the spot itself.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that investigation is pending.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not responsible for the accident and that FIR has falsely lodged against him.

8. Whether the petitioner or the bus driver is responsible for the accident and whose rashness and negligence has caused the accident are the aspects that have to be investigated by the first respondent and not by this Court at this stage.

9. 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 3/10

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:- "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 4/10

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the 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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. It is pertinent to note that if a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed at the stage of FIR, the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered.

13. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), a cursory perusal of the FIR makes out a prima facie case against the accused and it is a matter for investigation and as such, the question of quashing the FIR at this stage does not arise at all. Hence, this Court concludes that this is not a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7/10

14. Considering the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.169 of 2022 before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

19.01.2023 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No csm To 1.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

8/10

9/10

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

csm Order made in and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.759 of 2023 Dated: 19.01.2023 10/10