Madras High Court
Nalini vs State By on 12 October, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
1.Nalini
2.Jai Santhosh
3. Srinivasan
4. Damodaran
5. S.K.Paramasivam
6. Radhamani ...Petitioners
/vs/
1.State by
The Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Sathyamangalam,
Erode District.
(Crime No.393 of 2015)
2. Sathyamoorthy ... Respondents
Prayer : The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to call for the records in STC.No.1250 of 2015 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam and quash the same.
For Petitioners ... Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondents ... Mr.S.Santhosh for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
in STC.No.1250 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Sathyamangalam and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a case
has been registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.393 of 2015 for the
offences punishable under Section 160 of IPC on a complaint given by
Sub-Inspector of Police and after investigation, the respondent police filed
a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam and the same
was taken on file as STC.No.1250 of 2015 which is pending without any
progress. In view of the Apex Court decision in “Common cause”
Registered Society through its Registrar Vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in AIR 1996 SC 1619 the offence punishable under Section 160
of IPC attracts punishment up to one month imprisonment or with fine
which may extend upto Rs.200/- or both. The Apex Court has observed in
paragraph No.2 (e) of the aforesaid judgment as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
“Where the cases pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or
any other law for the time being in force are punishable with
imprisonment upto one year, with or without fine, and if such
pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trials have
still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or acquit the
accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.”
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that
the petitioners can very much approach the trial court instead of invoking
Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings. Because of
delay of the commencement of trial, no criminal proceedings can be
quashed without strong reason. Therefore, he pleaded for dismissal of this
case.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)
appearing for the first respondent police.
5. A perusal of the records reveals the fact that the petitioners are
accused in STC.No.1250 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Sathyamangalam. The petitioners are charged for the offence punishable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
under Section 160 of IPC and hence, it attracts the punishment up to one
month imprisonment or with fine which may extend upto Rs.200/- or both.
In view of the Supreme Court decision as stated above, if any criminal
case pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time
being in force are punishable with imprisonment upto one year, with or
without fine, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such
cases, trials have still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or
acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
6. I find no circumstance to exercise extraordinary power for
invoking Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings since there is a
remedy available before the criminal court itself by relying upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra. The petitioners
may get appropriate order from the trial court itself. Therefore, it does not
meet the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana
vs. Ch.BhajanLal (AIR 1992 SC 604), M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021 SCC online 315) &
PRATIBHA RANI Vs.SURAJ KUMAR & ANR (1985 Crl.L.J.817), the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
matter has to be investigated to find out the truth. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to quash the FIR and close the investigation at the beginning
stage. Therefore I find no merit and investigation is to be conducted to find
out the truth.
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court to file appropriate
application for getting legal remedy. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 12.10.2022
Internet : Yes/No
gv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM ,J.
gv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Sathyamangalam,
Erode District.
(Crime No.393 of 2015)
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.24639 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
