Mohamed Haja Nijamudeen vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 1426 Mad

                                                                          CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED : 31.01.2022

                                                  CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                           CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022
                                                    &
                                           CRL.M.P.No.639 of 2022

                     Mohamed Haja Nijamudeen                                   ... Petitioner

                                                    Versus

                     State Rep by its,
                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
                       Mayiladuthurai District,
                       Crime No.182 of 2018

                     2.H.Mahalakshmi,
                       Sub Inspector of Police,
                       Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
                       Mayiladuthurai District.                            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records relating to
                     the FIR in Crime No.182 of 2018 on the file of the respondent and
                     quash the same.


                     Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022


                                      For Petitioner  : Mr.M.Rajkumar
                                      For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
                                                        Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records

relating to the FIR in Crime No.182 of 2018 on the file of the

respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2018, the

petitioner along with 33 other persons belong to a Political Party

made protest near Kitappa Store, Mayiladuthurai, without getting

any permission. Hence, the respondent Police registered an FIR in

Crime No.182 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 143, 341 of

IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is not aware about the registration of the First

Information Report against him. Though he was very much available

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022

in his address, the petitioner was not called for enquiry. When the

petitioner applied for passport, at that time, the Passport Authority

hold his application stating that First Information Report is pending

against him. Thereafter, the petitioner verified the same and came to

know about this case.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the

offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with

imprisonment for a maximum period of six months. Though the case

has been registered against the petitioner in the year 2018, the final

report has not yet been filed by the respondent Police till date and

that there is a specific bar under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. for the

Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence beyond the period of

limitation. In support of the above contention, the petitioner relied

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of T.Balaji

Krishnasamy vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2018 SCC Online

Mad 8852.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

that on receiving the complaint, the respondent Police has registered

the complaint on 20.03.2018 in Crime No.182 of 2018 for the

offences under Sections 143, 341 of IPC. He would further submit

after complete investigation, the respondent is ready to file final

report.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. On perusal of the charges levelled against the

petitioner, it is seen that the offences are punishable with

imprisonment for a period less than six months. The case has been

registered on 20.03.2018 and till date the final report has not been

filed before the Court below. There is a specific bar under Section

468 (1) (2) (c) Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance after lapse of period of

limitation and the learned Magistrate is barred from taking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022

cognizance unless the respondent shows reasonable cause. No

reason has been assigned by the respondent Police to explain or

condone the delay in filing the final report. In view of the same, the

learned Judicial Magistrate cannot take cognizance and there is no

purpose in keeping the First Information Report pending.

8. In view of the above and placing reliance on the

judgment stated above, FIR in Crime No.182 of 2018, on the file of

the first respondent is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

31.01.2022

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dna

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

dna

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District,

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.1576 of 2022 & CRL.M.P.No.639 of 2022

31.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis