Madras High Court
Udhayakumar vs The State Rep.By on 6 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2279 of 2021
Udhayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police
C-3, Seven Wells Police Station
Chennai.
2.Kannan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to Crime No.1474 of 2020 on the file of the
respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Addl. Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
Crime No.1474 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the complaint
has been given by the 2nd respondent due to some money transaction; infact, the
defacto complainant has obtained loan from the petitioner in the year 2012 and
the said loan was not repaid by him. The defacto complainant went to the
petitioner's house to give back the amount, the petitioner refused but has given
the complaint falsely. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this
is only a money transaction and there is no occurrence as stated by the 2 nd
respondent.
3.FIRs shall be quashed on certain occasions as laid down in the
judgment of the Supreme Court held in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 and the said judgment is held
as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
"15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions:-
(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves the inherent powers
of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inherent in the High Court.
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
(v) the decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded
on the overriding element of public interest in punishing
persons for serious offences.
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there
may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
power to quash is concerned.
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between
the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out
in Propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender
is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance."
4.The Court cannot exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
in a mechanical manner. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should be
invoked sparingly only where there is no prima facie materials, so as to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
out a case. Though it is claimed by the petitioner/1 st accused that it is the money
transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, which has been
given a criminal color, a perusal of the FIR would only show that, on the
alleged day of occurrence, the petitioner had been to the house of the defacto
complainant and abused him in obscene words and also threatened him that he
would kill him by engaging a named rowdy person, he also threatened the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant of dire consequences. Though the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent had business dealings between themselves, the alleged
failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to pay the outstanding dues in time has
resulted in alleged occurrence. The perusal of the FIR would show that there
are prima facie allegations against the petitioner to make out a case under
Sections 294(b), 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. In the FIR stage itself, the Court cannot
conduct an enquiry by assuming the role of an investigator. Unless, a full
fledged investigation is allowed to go on, it is not possible to bring out the truth
to light.
5.Since, the averments made in the complaint make out a prima
facie case and the case does not fit into the conditions where the FIR can be
quashed, I find no merits in this petition filed by the petitioner. So this is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
the case which should be quashed at the threshold itself. Since, the case has got
the scope for investigation, no interference can be entertained at this stage.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 06.09.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Inspector of Police
C-3, Seven Wells Police Station
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
ssr
Crl.O.P.No.3828 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.2279 of 2021
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
