Madras High Court
Aejaz Ahmed vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
Aejaz Ahmed,
S/o. Raseheed Ahmed ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector of Police,
Ambur All Women Police Station,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.2/2020)
2. Pooja,
D/o. Devaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to issue direction to call for the records of Cr. No.2 of 2020 on the
file of the 1st respondent police pending investigation and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thiyagarajan
For Respondents : Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
for R1
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
F.I.R. registered against the petitioner in Crime No.2 of 2020 for the offence
Sec. 366(A) I.P.C., 3(1), 4(2)(b), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention
Act), 1956.
2. The crux of the allegation found in the F.I.R. is that a minor girl
was induced, she was taken to various places and subjected to prostitution
and sexual assault, thereby F.I.R. has been registered. The only ground on
which the F.I.R. sought to be quashed is that the defacto complainant has
not signed in the F.I.R. Therefore, the same is against the procedure
contemplated under Sec.154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, he
seeks to quash the F.I.R.
3. Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for 1st respondent and perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
4. On perusal of the Sec.154 Cr.P.C., it would make it clear that any
information relating to the commission of cognizable offence if given orally
to an officer, who is incharge of a police station, the same shall be reduced
to writing by him or under his direction and shall be read over to the
informant and signed by the person giving it. No doubt, the signature of
informant is required to be obtained in the F.I.R. The question arise whether
mere not obtaining signature, the information could be thrown out at the
threshold. It is relevant to note that in this case, the very F.I.R. indicates that
having given the statement as to the nature of serious allegation against
perpetrator of the crime, it appears that the victim has refused to sign in the
statement, which has been recorded in the F.I.R. itself. However, the
investigation proceeded further and the victim girl was examined and
statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
The statement recorded before the Magistrate is also placed before me and
the same indicates that she has not only supported the contents of F.I.R., but
also implicated the accused how she was subjected to sexual assault by
many persons. The statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate
would itself clearly lent the authenticity of the contents of F.I.R.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
5. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that mere not
signing of the F.I.R. by the informant, the same is not a ground to quash the
F.I.R. The purpose of obtaining signature is only to lend authenticity of the
statement of maker. Therefore, mere violation of such procedure by not
obtaining the signature will not be a ground to quash the F.I.R. Whereas, in
this case F.I.R. has been registered, investigation has been carried out and it
has been proceeded further, maker lent assurance to the statement contained
in the F.I.R. by way of 164 statement recorded before the learned Judicial
Magistrate.
6. It is also relevant to note that the Division Bench of the High Court
of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2002 in the case of Sahjad
Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand has held that mere absence of
signature of the informant will not vitiate or nullify the F.I.R. and failure to
observe the procedure laid down under Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. for recording fard
beyan does not render the statement of the maker thereof inadmissible.
Further, it has held that the insistence on the signature of maker of F.I.R. is
for the purpose of lending authenticity to the words or statement so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
recorded by the maker. The proof of such authenticity can also be given by
the person in whose presence the statement of the maker of the fard beyan
was recorded. Therefore, considering the above judgment and also the fact
that the statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and she has
confirmed the contents and a mere procedural lapse will not nullify or vitiate
the F.I.R. In the given case, in fact, the officer incharge, who recorded the
F.I.R. about the refusal of defacto complainant to sign the F.I.R. In such
view of the matter, this Court do not find any material or merit in this case
and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed.
22.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
rpp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Ambur All Women Police Station,
Vellore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rpp
CRL.O.P.No.13380 of 2022
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
