Madras High Court

P.R.Vairamani vs State Rep.By on 2 March, 2022

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 02.03.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                                Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016
                                                          and
                                                Crl.M.P.No.13771 of 2016

                1.P.R.Vairamani
                2.Umamaheswari
                3.Padmavathy
                4.Priya
                5.Arun                                          ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,4 to 6

                                                          Vs.
                1.State rep.by
                  Inspector of Police,
                  R9, Valasaravakkam Police Station,
                  Valasaravakkam,
                  Chennai – 600 087.                             ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                2.P.R.Janaki Raman                          ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant



                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.86
                of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

                                  For Petitioners           : Mr.S.Kumara Devan
                                  For Respondent No.1       : Mr.R.Murthi
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                  For Respondent No.2       : No appearance

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

                1/9
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records

relating to the FIR in Crime No.86 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent

and quash the same.

2. The second respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint

against the petitioners and one Senthilkumar for the alleged offence of theft in a

building under Section 380 IPC. On the basis of the complaint, FIR in crime

No.86 of 2016, for the offences under Section 380 IPC was registered on

03.02.2016. The allegations made in the complaint are that the second

respondent/defacto complainant is running a private travel service. In

connection with his business, he has to travel abroad frequently. He entrusted

the administration of his business to the accused P.R.Vairamani. One

Umamaheswari, second accused was working in his travels. P.R.Vairamani

was permitted to stay at his home. In 2014, he had been to abroad and after

coming home, he found 136 sovereigns of gold jewels were are stolen along

with the TV, Laptop, Samsung Camera, the documents of two wheeler, original

documents of his property, electronic goods, pooja articles and costly

household articles. The details of the gold jewels are as follows: Bracelet 5

Nos.-29.5 sovereigns, Rings 7 Nos.-10 sovereigns, Chain 12 Nos.- 68.25

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

Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

sovereigns, Bangles 8 Nos-11.5 sovereigns, Necklace 3 Nos.-12 sovereigns,

Dollar 3 Nos-1.25 sovereigns, ear rings 3.50 sovereigns. Not only that, the

original passport, cash, documents relating to the travels, cheques signed by the

second respondent/defacto complainant, important files from the computer had

also been stolen. He came to know that taking advantage of his absence, the

accused conspired together and committed theft, therefore, this complaint.

3. The petitioners have filed this quash application challenging the

registration of the FIR.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except the

allegations made in the complaint, there is no other substantial evidence

available to corroborate the allegations against the petitioners so far. It is also

submitted that the accused Priya and Arun are minors at the time of the alleged

offences and prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate submits that since investigation

was stayed at the time of admission of this Criminal Original Petition, there is

no progress in the investigation, therefore, he is not able to file status report as

directed by this Court on 22.02.2022.

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

Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

6. Considered the rival submissions and perused all the records.

7. In the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the first accused P.R.Vairamani is the brother of the

second respondent/defacto complainant. The legal position with regard to

quashing of FIR is very well settled in the case of State of Haryana and others

Vs. Bhajan lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. The relevant

portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

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.

(7) 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Quashing of FIR can be done only if no case is made out, then only

FIR can be quashed. In the case before hand, there are specific allegations

made against the accused that they connived and conspired together and

committed theft of articles. Only if proper investigation is conducted, the truth

or falsity of the allegations made in the FIR will come to light. As of now, the

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

Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016

allegations made in the FIR are sufficient to proceed with further investigation

in this case.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused

Priya and Arun who are the 4th and 5th petitioners herein are minors at the time

of the alleged occurrence. No evidence is produced to show the age of the