Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2279 of 2021
Udhayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police
C-3, Seven Wells Police Station
Chennai.
2.Kannan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to Crime No.1474 of 2020 on the file of the
respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Addl. Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1474 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the complaint has been given by the 2nd respondent due to some money transaction; infact, the defacto complainant has obtained loan from the petitioner in the year 2012 and the said loan was not repaid by him. The defacto complainant went to the petitioner's house to give back the amount, the petitioner refused but has given the complaint falsely. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is only a money transaction and there is no occurrence as stated by the 2 nd respondent.
3.FIRs shall be quashed on certain occasions as laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court held in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 and the said judgment is held as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021 "15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:-
(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
(v) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021 power to quash is concerned.
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
4.The Court cannot exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in a mechanical manner. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should be invoked sparingly only where there is no prima facie materials, so as to make https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021 out a case. Though it is claimed by the petitioner/1 st accused that it is the money transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, which has been given a criminal color, a perusal of the FIR would only show that, on the alleged day of occurrence, the petitioner had been to the house of the defacto complainant and abused him in obscene words and also threatened him that he would kill him by engaging a named rowdy person, he also threatened the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant of dire consequences. Though the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had business dealings between themselves, the alleged failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to pay the outstanding dues in time has resulted in alleged occurrence. The perusal of the FIR would show that there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner to make out a case under Sections 294(b), 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. In the FIR stage itself, the Court cannot conduct an enquiry by assuming the role of an investigator. Unless, a full fledged investigation is allowed to go on, it is not possible to bring out the truth to light.
5.Since, the averments made in the complaint make out a prima facie case and the case does not fit into the conditions where the FIR can be quashed, I find no merits in this petition filed by the petitioner. So this is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021 the case which should be quashed at the threshold itself. Since, the case has got the scope for investigation, no interference can be entertained at this stage.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 06.09.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Inspector of Police
C-3, Seven Wells Police Station
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/8
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
ssr
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2279 of 2021
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/8