Madras High Court
B.Arulmani vs The State on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.25386 of 2021
and
Crl.MP.No.14062 of 2021
B.Arulmani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State,
Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai.
(Crime No.638 of 2014)
2.P.Joseph ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating in Crime No.638 of 2014
on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.E.Vijayakumar
For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.G.Anandaraj
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ingredients of the
offences alleged in the F.I.R. had not been made out. Therefore, he seeks to quash
the F.I.R. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Pachiyammal Vs. The state of Tamil Nadu, made in Crl.O.P.No.20833
of 2018, dated 07.02.2019 and also relied up on the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 59 in the case of Joseph Selvaraj.A Vs.
State of Gujarat and others.
2. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ Defacto
complainant submitted that the ingredients of the offences have been made out and
he invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in the F.I.R.
3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that to
attract the Section 294 (b) of IPC, the alleged persons should have used abusive
language in public. But in the complaint and in the F.I.R., it is mentioned as
through phone call.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation has already been completed and the final report has also been filed
before the Court concerned .
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also furnished the copy
of the final report before this Court which was taken on the file by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur on 30.06.2014, and submitted that this petition to
quash the F.I.R. after 7 years of filing the final report is not at all maintainable.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
reliance placed upon by him in the rulings cited by him are rejected in the light of
the rulings of Bhajan Lal Vs. the state of Haryana, where guidelines were issued
by the Honourable Supreme Court, not to quash the F.I.R. and the Charge Sheet
leniently but those extraordinary power shall be used sparingly. Hence, this
Criminal Original Petition to quash the F.I.R. after 7 years of filing of the final
report is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the trial. The
Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial.
04.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jai
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jai
To
1.The State,
Inspector of Police,
T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.25386 of 2021
04.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
