Shahul Hameed vs S.Anjalai
2022 Latest Caselaw 14111 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14111 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2022

Madras High Court

Shahul Hameed vs S.Anjalai on 8 August, 2022

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 08.08.2022

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                              Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018
                                                        and
                                              Crl.M.P.No.14576 of 2018

                     Shahul Hameed,
                     Sub Inspector of Police,
                     Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
                     Ariyalur Taluk & District            .. Petitioner/A9

                                                          Vs.

                     S.Anjalai                            ..Respondent/Defacto complainant

                     PRAYER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.109 of 2018 on the file
                     of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ariyalur and quash the same in so far
                     as the petitioner is concerned.


                                        For Petitioner    : Mr.V.Illanchezhian

                                        For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Murugesan



                     _____________
                     Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018




                                                            ORDER

The petitioner herein is the 9th accused.

2. The petitioner is the Sub-Inspector of Police in Prohibition

Enforcement Wing, Ariyalur and he has filed the instant Criminal Original

Petition, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.109 of 2018, on the file of

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur and quash the same.

3. The case of the prosecution is that

(i) On 30.08.2015 at 06.00pm, the respondent with her parents and

his brother were inside the house before the TV. At that time they heard a

sound in front of the house. Hence, the respondent's father came outside the

house and saw that the accused 1 to 8 namely 1.Mani, S/o.Kolanchi,

2.Ajithi, S/o. Kolanchi, 3. Balasubramanian, S/o.Kaathaperumal, 4.

Poobalan, S/o.Balasubramanian, 5.Selvaraj, S/o. Kottakolanchi, 6.Selvam,

S/o.Ponnuchamy, 7.Sundari, W/o.Kollanchi and 8.Patchiammal,

W/o.Balasubramanian, were assembled before the house of the respondent

and damaged the tiles of the house.

_____________ Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018

(ii) Accused No.1 to 8 abused them for the dispute of non-payment

of the charges for ploughing the land and trying to do the same through

others. The accused persons caused damage to the motor cycle and bicycle.

Thereafter, the parents of the respondent prevented the accused persons and

hence the accused persons attacked them and caused damages of

Rs.10,000/- to the two wheelers and tiles.

(iii) The respondent filed a complaint to the Superintendent of

Police, Ariyalur on 05.10.2015 and no action was taken in the complaint.

(iv) Thereafter, on 16.11.2015 the respondent filed a private

complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C., and the same was taken on file in Cr.M.P.No.8672 of 2015 and it

was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station on

18.11.2015 in D.No.4823. The Inspector of Police had registered the case in

Crime No.648 of 2016 for the offences under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323,

354, 506 (ii) and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The petitioner herein

_____________ Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018

investigated the case and the final report was filed on 26.11.2016 as 'mistake

of fact'.

(v) On the report filed by the petitioner herein as a 'mistake of fact',

the case in Crime No.648 of 2016, has been closed.

(vi) Subsequently it appears that the respondent herein has filed a

private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by arraying the accused 1 to 8

as in the above Crime No.648/2016 for the very same allegation and also

added the Sub Inspector of Police, PEW, Ariyalur, the petitioner herein as

A9 and hence, the petitioner seeks quashment of the private complaint.

4. As stated supra, there is no averment or allegation against the

petitioner herein, who is the previous investigation officer, having

investigated the alleged crime in Cr.No.648 of 2016 for the very same

allegation of the commission of the offence, has prepared a negative report

as a closure on the ground of 'mistake of fact'.

_____________ Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018

5. Merely because the petitioner herein has investigated the

complaint in the said Crime No.648 of 2016 and filed a negative report

against the private complainant, the same could not be a ground to add the

earlier investigation officer also as an accused for this case for the alleged

offence.

6. The learned Magistrate without perusing the averments made in

the private complaint appears to have issued summons to the accused

person/A9 under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C.

7. I find that the factual matrix of this case squarely falls under

Clause 'g' of the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal], which reads as follows:

“(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.”

_____________ Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018

8. Therefore, it is nothing but a malicious prosecution against the

investigation officer who filed a negative report in the complaint preferred by

the private complainant. The private complaint is for the alleged

commission of offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 427 IPC and

Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, against A1 to A8 and hence, I find that without

there being any wrong or mistake on the part of the petitioner herein, there

cannot be any prosecution against the petitioner herein.

9. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/defacto

complainant would contend that there was a delay, I find that FIR itself has

been filed only on 26.11.2016 and the petitioner has conducted enquiry on

the very same day and hence on factual ground, I have no hesitation to reject

the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, going

by the averments made in the private complaint, merely because the

petitioner herein was an earlier investigation officer investigated the

Cr.No.648 of 2016, cannot be a ground to add him in the private complaint

_____________ Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25555 of 2018

preferred by the private complainant on the ground that he has filed 'mistake

of fact' report and hence, continuation of the prosecution amounts to abuse

of process of law and accordingly, Criminal Original Petition is allowed.