Madras High Court

K.Balan vs The State Represented By on 20 September, 2022

                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 20.09.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                              Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

                     K.Balan                                                     ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs.

                     1. The State Represented by
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        District Crime Branch,
                        Thiruvarur District.
                        Crime No.17 of 2018

                     2. The Deputy Director of
                        Health Service,
                        Thiruvarur District,
                        Kamalalayam South,
                        Thiruvarur – 610 001.                                 ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Civil Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal

                     Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.17 of 2018 on the file

                     of the 1st respondent, dated 12.12.2018 and quash the same in respect of

                     allegation against the petitioner / A4 alone.




                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

                                              For Petitioner      : Mr.R.Sethuvarayar

                                              For 1st Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred, seeking to call for

the records in Crime No. 17 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur District and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has collected

money from one J.Vijaya and R.Elavarasi for appointment of Data Entry

Operator in Deputy Director of Health Servie at Thiruvarur District. A sum

of Rs.2,50,000/- was received from each of them on 06.09.2016 and the

same was handed over to one K.Selvaraj who is working as a Driver to the

Deputy Director of Health Service at Thiruvarur. After receiving the

amount, neither job was secured nor money was returned. In this regard, a

case was registered in Crime No.17 of 2018 for the offences under Sections

120 B, 406, 408 and 420 of I.P.C.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

3. Heard Mr.R.Sethuvarayar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Damodaran, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is working

as a Health Inspector and the allegations made against him are false and

fabricated; the Deputy Director of Health Services has connivance with the

private persons for giving a false complaint against the petitioner; the case

of the prosecution does not show that the petitioner has criminal conspiracy

with other accused to commit the offence; the petitioner has not cheated

anyone dishonestly for getting money; the petitioner has no connection with

the case; in fact, the victim herself has given a letter stating that the

petitioner was not involved in the offence. The complaint was given very

belatedly and that would cause serious doubt about the occurrence. The

case which has to be closed as mistake of fact, is kept pending unnecessarily

for a long period; hence, the FIR is to be quashed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

5. The records would show that the Joint Director of Health Services,

Thiruvarur District has received several complaints from different persons

that they have given money to the named staffs of the department. So far as

the present petition is concerned, it is alleged that one victim by name

R.Elavarasi has given a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner to hand over

the same to the driver of the Joint Director on the assurance that she would

be employed as a Data Entry Operator. It is further alleged that when the

said victim demanded the money back, the petitioner and the driver of the

Joint Director namely K.Selvaraj, threatened her. The complaint is an

exhaustive one which contains various allegations against various other

members who have worked as a network with K.Selvaraj. Though it is

alleged by the petitioner that there are no prima facie materials available to

make out a case against the petitioner, the averment made in the complaint

would show that one of the victims approached the petitioner for a job. A

sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been handed over to the other accused Selvaraj in

order to secure the post of Data Entry Operator. It is seen to be one of the

major job racketing involving various persons. Therefore, the case should

be allowed to be investigated in order to bring out the truth to light.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

6. Since sufficient materials available to make out a case against the

accused for the offences under sections 120 B, 406, 408 and 420 of I.P.C., I

do not feel, it is a proper case where the Court has to exercise its power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

7. At the threshold stage of the case itself, the Court cannot conduct

any roving enquiry and it is for the prosecution to conduct a thorough

investigation to unravel the truth. In order to quash the proceedings under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the case should be fit into the principles laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843. In the said Judgment, it is held as under:

"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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

(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.

(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

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."

8. In the case in hand, the averments in the complaint themselves

will serve as a prima facie material and hence, the 1st respondent should be

allowed to proceed his investigation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23968 of 2021

9. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR is dismissed. However, the 1st

respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a final report.

20.09.2022

vum Index:yes/No Speaking Order / Non speaking order

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur District.

Crime No.17 of 2018