Madras High Court
G.Janarthanan vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4802 of 2021
1.Crl.O.P(MD)No.9397 of 2021:-
G.Janarthanan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.96 of 2019).
... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ramachandran ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records and quash the F.I.R in Crime No.96 of 2019,
dated 15.06.2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peravurani
Police Station, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.R.Venkateshwar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
2.Crl.O.P(MD)No.10553 of 2021:-
C.Ramachandran ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant
Vs.
The State represented by,
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pattukottai Sub-Division,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.96 of 2019).
4.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
direct the first respondent to transfer the investigation of the case in
Crime No.96 of 2019 pending in the office of the third respondent
police to the office of the fourth respondent ie., the Inspector of
Police, CB CID, Thanjavur or any other Officer not below the rank of
a Superintendent of Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateshwar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9397 of 2021 has been filed to quash the F.I.R
registered in Crime No.96 of 2019, dated 15.06.2019 on the file of
the first respondent for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C on the basis of the complaint lodged by
the second respondent as against the petitioner.
2.Crl.O.P(MD)No.10553 of 2021 has been filed to transfer the
investigation in Crime No.96 of 2019 from the file of the third
respondent police to the file of the fourth respondent.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9397 of 2021:-
3.The crux of the allegation is that the complaint lodged by
the second respondent was not registered rather by colluding with
the accused persons, the petitioner herein and the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Peravurani Police Station have created a fresh complaint by
fabrication and impersonation and registered only as against five
accused persons, though specific allegations made against many
accused persons. Originally, the second respondent lodged the
complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.157 of
2017, dated 17.06.2017 on the file of the Peravurani Police Station
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii)
of I.P.C as against five named persons. Simultaneously, on the basis
of the complaint lodged by Muthukumar, FIR has been registered in
Crime No.158 of 2017, dated 17.06.2017 on the file of the
Peravurani Police Station came to be registered for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C as against
the second respondent and four others. As directed the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the
petitioner could not able to conduct the investigation, since the
entire allegations are made as against the petitioner, who being the
Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station. Therefore, it was
brought to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate and thereafter,
separate order was passed and directed to appoint some other
Inspector. In the meanwhile, the second respondent filed a direction
petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.19220 of 2018 and this
Court, by an order, dated 29.10.2018, directed the first respondent
to register the case. In pursuant to the said direction, the present
impugned F.I.R in Crime No.96 of 2019 has been registered for the
offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C
as against the petitioner and another.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
4.In the meanwhile, the second respondent also filed a Writ
Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.8343 of 2021 seeking
direction to take disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner.
Now, the petitioner is facing departmental proceedings on the
complaint lodged by the second respondent.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first
respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.On a perusal of the records revealed that the petitioner
herein, while serving as Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police
Station, registered the case as against Venkateshwar in Crime
No.127 of 2011, dated 01.08.2011 for the offences under Sections
341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C and thereafter, another case has
also been registered in Crime No.196 of 2008, dated 01.10.2018 for
the offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
7.The petitioner while serving as Inspector of Police of the first
respondent, the following cases have been registered as against the
said Venkateshwar:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
“a) Crime No.233 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017
under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
b) Crime No.232 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017
under Sections 147, 148 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
c) Crime No.31 of 2018, dated 17.03.2018
under Sections 143, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of
I.P.C.
d) Crime No.133 of 2018 under Sections
294(b), 324 of I.P.C and Section 3(1) of TN PPDL Act
and 3(i)(R)(S) of SC/ST Act.”
8.In fact, history sheet was opened against the said
Venkateshwar after the tenure of the petitioner herein. Due to
which, he developed personal animosity against the petitioner and
he also lodged a complaint before the State Human Rights
Commission in SHRC No.3218 of 2018 with several false allegations.
However, it was not prosecuted by him and it was dismissed on
14.06.2019. While being so, for the occurrence happened on
16.06.2017 on the complaint lodged by the second respondent and
the accused in the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police of the
first respondent registered the FIRs in Crime Nos.157 and 158 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
2017. After completion of investigation in Crime No.158 of 2017,
charge sheet has been laid and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.99 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Pattukkottai and it is pending for trial.
9.However, the said counsel Venkateswar, who appeared for
the second respondent, submitted representation as if the
Sub-Inspector of Police, impersonated the second respondent and
forged the signature of the second respondent and registered the
F.I.R in Crime No.157 of 2017 only against five accused persons on
the instigation of the petitioner herein. As stated supra, after
direction issued by the learned Magistrate, now the impugned F.I.R
has been registered for the said allegations as against the
Sub-Inspector of Police at that juncture. Now, the investigation
completed by other Inspector of Police in Crime No.157 of 2017 and
filed final report as against 10 accused persons for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 452, 323 and 149 of
I.P.C.
10.Even according to the second respondent, the F.I.R has
been registered in Crime No.157 of 2017 by the first accused in
Crime No.96 of 2019, namely the Special Sub-Inspector of Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
The only allegation as against the petitioner is that he only
instigated the Special Sub-Inspector of Police to register the
complaint only as against five accused persons instead of 10
accused persons. Now, the first accused had taken voluntary
retirement from service as early as on 31.03.2018 itself. As far as
the petitioner is concerned, he is also facing departmental
proceedings with regard to the complaint lodged by the counsel,
who appeared for the second respondent.
11.That apart, on a perusal of the impugned F.I.R registered
in Crime No.96 of 2019, there is absolutely no ingredients to attract
the offences as alleged by the prosecution.
12.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and
others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], held that the civil liability cannot be
converted into criminal liability and held and as under while on this
issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in
business circle to convert purely civil dispute in criminal case. This is
obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil law remedies
are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of
lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There
is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled
in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claim which do not
involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and dishonoured.
13.In the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2000 (2) SCC 636], the Honourable Supreme Court of India held
as follows:-
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak
of criminal offence, criminal proceedings are not a
short cut of other remedies available in law. Before
issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which High Court is to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
14.It is seen from the F.I.R that there is absolutely no piece of
material has been found that the petitioner committed the offence
under Section 420 of I.P.C., Where the ingredients required to
constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading
of the complaint/F.I.R, the continuation of the proceeding will
constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
15.Insofar as the other offences are concerned, there are no
ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468,
471 and 109 of I.P.C as against the petitioner.
16.On a perusal of the statement recorded from the second
respondent revealed that the complaint lodged by the second
respondent and the signature found in the statement are one and
the same. The complaint lodged by the second respondent and the
complaint lodged by the first accused, namely, the Special Sub-
Inspector of Police written by one and the same person. Therefore,
there is no question of forgery and falsification of documents by the
petitioner herein. In fact, now the entire investigation completed
and final report filed as against 10 accused persons in Crime No.157
of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
506(ii), 452, 323 and 149 of I.P.C. Therefore, the present F.I.R is
nothing but to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, foisted a
false complaint.
17.It is relevant to rely upon the land mark Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, in which, the Honourable Supreme Court of
India has laid down the following categories of instances wherein
inherent powers can be exercised in order to secure the ends of
justice as follows:-
“(a) 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;
(b) 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 Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party;
(g) 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
18.In view of the above, the impugned F.I.R cannot be
sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed and
the F.I.R in Crime No.96 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent is
quashed and Crl.O.P(MD)No.9397 of 2021 is allowed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10553 of 2021:-
19.In view of the order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9397 of
2021, the transfer of investigation in Crime No.96 of 2019 on the
file of the third respondent does not arise. Hence,
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10553 of 2021 is dismissed.
12.04.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pattukottai Sub-Division,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Thanjavur District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.9397 & 10553 of 2021
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
