Madras High Court
A.Vadivel vs State Represented By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.5906 of 2019
1.A.Vadivel
2.K.Palaniyappan
3.P.Andiyappan : Petitioners/A1 to A3
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Valanadu Police Station,
Trichy District.
(Crime No.65 of 2019) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.65
of 2019 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Crl. side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.65 of
2019 on the file of the respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
It is a suo motu registration of the complaint by the
Inspector of Police, Valanadu Police Station. The brief
facts, which led to the filing of the criminal case is
that one Vadivelu, who belongs to a political party gave a
complaint to the respondent police that on 25/05/2009 at
about 3.00 pm, a banner that was put up by the political
party was stolen by Murugan, Sathish @ Sathishkumar and
Mahendran. During the course of investigation, it was found
that the banner was in the custody of one Alagar. The
above said Alagar informed the Investigating Officer that
when he was walking along with others, the banner was put
up and he found that the banner hanging damaged. So he took
the banner and put up the same in his garden. By giving the
above said information, he handed over the damaged banner
to the Investigating Officer. Finding that a wrong
information or complaint has been given by this petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
against the above said person namely Murugan, Sathish @
Sathishkumar and Mahendran by exercising suo motu power, a
case in Crime No.65 of 2019 has been registered under
section 211 IPC by the Investigating Officer.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed mainly on the ground that section 211 IPC is a
non-cognizance offence and unless the complaint is given by
the affected person, the cognizance is barred and the
police has no power to register the complaint.
4.In the light of the above averments, let us extract
section 211 IPC. Section 211 IPC reads as follows:-
“211. False charge of offence made
with intent to injure.—Whoever, with intent
to cause injury to any person, institutes
or causes to be instituted any criminal
proceeding against that person, or falsely
charges any person with having committed an
offence, knowing that there is no just or
lawful ground for such proceeding or charge
against that person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both; and if such criminal
proceeding be instituted on a false charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
of an offence punishable with death,
[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment
for seven years or upwards, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would straightway rely upon the judgment of this court in
the case of M.Vijayakumar Vs. State [2011(2) TNLR 174
(Mad)], wherein a similar situation was under discussion.
In that case, a false complaint of threat has been given by
the accused. Based upon the false information, offence
punishable under section 211 IPC was registered against the
petitioner. Investigation was also undertaken and final
report was also filed before the concerned court and that
was challenged. Noting that it is a non-cognizance offence
and the complaint can only be given by the person against
whom false accusation has been given is the competent
person. On that ground, it was quashed.
6.Now coming to the fact and circumstances of this
case, no doubt a false information has been given by the
accused persons to the public authority namely the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
Inspector of Police. Now the investigation has been over
and final report is also made ready. But, as mentioned in
section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C, it is non cognizance offence,
which is clearly barred by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had a occasion in the case of Saloni Arora Vs. State of NCT
of Delhi (AIR 2017 SC 2013) has stated that if non-
compliance of section 195 Cr.P.C, the entire proceedings
are void ab initio. On the same ground, the entire
proceedings is faulted and this petition is liable to be
allowed.
8.In the result, this criminal original petition is
allowed. The impugned proceedings in crime No.65 of 2019 on
the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed as against
this petitioners. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
22.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
Valanadu Police Station,
Trichy District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9269 of 2019
22/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
