Madras High Court
Nansi vs The State Represented By on 20 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.13977 of 2021
Nansi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chennai.
2.Martin Luther ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in connection with Crime No.158 of 2021 on the file of the 1st
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.P.Asaithambi for R2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred, to call for the
records in connection with the Crime No.158 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same as illegal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. On the complaint given by the 2nd
respondent, the 1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.158 of
2021 against the petitioner and her husband / 1st accused for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
a victim in this case, who had sustained injuries and taken treatment in the
Government Hospital, Chengalpattu; the respondent police suppressed all
these facts and registered a complaint against the petitioner and her husband
as though they attacked the de-facto complainant; the complaint was actually
forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the 1st respondent; since the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
respondent and the petitioner are relatives, the 1st respondent police had
obtained an undertaking from the petitioner to settle the matter amicably;
despite a complaint has been registered behind her back on 02.03.2021 itself,
the 2nd respondent by using his influence with the public officials has made
several complaints against the petitioner and those complaints have been
closed in several police stations.
5. The records would show that the date of occurrence is 21.01.2021 at
7.00 p.m. The contents of the complaint would show that there are only
generalized statement without any specific details about the occurrence.
Though it is stated that the de-facto complainant was abused by the petitioner
and her husband in a filthy language, no details about the words used is stated.
Even the allegation about the threat is also very general.
6. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that himself and his
daughter were assaulted by the petitioner and her husband. But the records
would show that it is the petitioner who had sustained injury, for which an
A.R entry has been made on 21.01.2021 at about 9.10 p.m in A.R
No.1768649. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
petitioner had been treated as an outpatient for the injuries sustained over her
chest. The complaint given by the petitioner on 23.01.2021 was treated as a
petition in C.S.R No.595 of 2020. So, it is seen that the parties have some
civil dispute and the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were giving frequent
complaints against each other and on which the police have been conducting
the enquiry. Since the allegations made in the complaint are very bald and do
not make out a prima facie case, I feel it is a proper case where the court has
to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan
Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 as
under:
“........
(a) where the allegations made in the First 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R 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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
(c) 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;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence bu 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;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the 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;
(g) 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”
Since the case in hand does not disclose any material facts, no purpose will be
served if the investigation is continued and hence, the FIR registered on the
file of the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.158 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby
quashed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking Order
um
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Guduvancherry Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
uma
Crl.O.P.No.25264 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.13977 of 2021
20.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
