J.Chenthil Rajan vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 3652 Mad

                                                                              Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       DATED: 03.04.2023

                                                              CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI
                                                   Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021


                 J.Chenthil Rajan                                                ...Petitioner
                                                         Vs

                 1.The State Rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Perumalpuram Police Station,
                   Tirunelveli City.
                   (Crime No.796 of 2020)
                 2.S.Vaikundarajan                                               ...Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the entire records pertaining
                 to the case in Crime No.796 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of
                 Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City and quash the same as
                 against the petitioner.
                                  For Petitioner                : Mr.Mohamed Aslam
                                                                  For M/s Ajmal Associates
                                  For 1st Respondent            : Mrs.M.Aasha
                                                                  Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                  For 2nd Respondent            : Mr.N.Murali Kumaran Senior Counsel
                                                                  For M/s/.Mccan Law Firm

                                                              ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.796 of 2020 on

the file of 1st respondent police.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

2.The petitioner is A1 in the case. The allegation against the

petitioner is that on 18.11.2020 at about 02.45 p.m., when the defacto

complainant was at the house of his advocate, he found A2 and another person

roaming here and there and when he caught A2 and enquired him and he was

informed that A2 was instructed by the petitioner to follow the defacto

complainant and to take photographs and video clippings regarding his

movements. The person, who accompanied him escaped from the spot and he

told that there were other ten person, who had been employed by the

petitioner to follow the defacto complainant and to finish the complainant

with the help of hire links. A2 furnished the details of the said other persons

and their phone numbers. When the statement was being recorded, suddenly,

A2 took out a knife and he attempted to assault the defacto complainant and

he threatened the defacto complainant. After recording the statement, A2

along with his mobile phone was handed over to the custody of Assistant

Commissioner of Police at about 06.15 p.m., along with a complaint. But, A2

was left out by the Inspector of Police. The defacto complainant called the

media and narrated that his life was under threat and hence a fresh complaint

was lodged and a FIR was registered.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that A2 is an employee

of the petitioner's friend and that there is family dispute between the defacto

complainant and the petitioner regarding the partition of the properties. When

A2 was travelling with one Nagaraj. He was forcibly abducted by the

hooligans. A2 was kept in confinement and he was brutally attacked. He was

forced to give statement as dictated by the defacto complainant and the same

has also been video graphed and later it was edited as per their convenience.

4. The said Nagaraj who accompanied A2 has made a police

complaint. In order to avoid the consequences, the defacto complainant

dropped A2 before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai. The

Commissioner put A2 in illegal confinement. The brother of A2 by name

Alagu Eswaran approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I and filed a

petition under Section 97 of Cr.P.C., to get a search warrant. An advocate by

name Sekar was appointed. He approached the office of the Assistant

Commissioner and he was directed to approach the Palayamkottai Police

Station. But before the advocate meet the Commissioner, A2 was handed over

to his counsel at about 11.00 a.m. On the next morning, he was produced

before the Magistrate along with a compliance report. A2 received multiple

injuries due to the assault of the defacto complainant. He took treatment in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

Government Hospital and private hospital and his statement was recorded by

the Police.

5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that no F.I.R. was

registered on the complaint dated 18.11.2020 and that in the first complaint,

nothing was alleged against this petitioner. In the first complaint, there was

no ingredients to attract Sections 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. Hence, the second

complaint was created under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The knife was not

collected from A2 which clearly shows that the whole allegation referred upon

was false.

6. Even as per the complaint, the petitioner was not present in the

scene of occurrence and no weapon was used by him and hence, Sections 448,

452, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC are not made out. The petitioner has not

committed trespass. He has not attempted to commit murder. He was not

roaming with deadly weapon. He has not committed criminal intimidation and

the FIR to be quashed against the petitioner.

7. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that A2 and

another person were initially moving suspiciously and A2 was seen taking

videos in his mobile and on suspicion, he was got hold of and the other person https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

Nagaraj fled from the scene. When A2 was enquired, he gave a statement

stating that the first petitioner engaged him and 10 other persons to follow the

defacto complainant and to take photographs and videographs. He has also

given a statement that they have a larger plan to eliminate the defacto

complainant. A2 took out a knife and attempted to attack the defacto

complainant. He was handed over to the Commissioner of Police along with

his mobile phone and along with a written complaint. Since no case was

registered against A2, the next day, the defacto complainant made a

representation before the City Commissioner and only after that a FIR was

registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

8. When the respondent police got an information regarding the

commission of an cognizable offence, the police has no other option, but to

register the FIR. A2 was got red handed and was handed over with material

evidence, a mobile phone from which videographs and photos were sent, no

case was registered against him on that date. Eventhough A2 was handed

over to the Commissioner of Police, along with a written complaint and

material evidence, no case was registered against him on that date. A2, who

was produced before the Commissioner was let free by the Inspector of

Police, Palayamkottai. The report of the Advocate Commissioner – Sekar

reveals that A2 was not in custody at the time of his visit. The Inspector of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

Police, Palayamkottai has no power to release the accused, who was involved

in a cognizable offence, that too before registering a case.

9. The co accused Nagaraj gave a complaint after A2 was handed

over to the Commissioner of Police. In the complaint lodged by the said

Nagaraj, only a wordy quarrel was mentioned. Kidnapping was not mentioned

in the complaint. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report stating that there

was no such person detained. No statement of attack or kidnap was recorded

in this statement. Only after three days, they approached the learned Judicial

Magistrate and got a direction in Cr.M.P.No.6689 of 2020 and a FIR was

registered against the defacto complainant.

10. Though A2 was handed over to the Commissioner, with

mobile phone from which videographs and photos were sent, no case was

registered against him on that date, the Inspector of Palayamkottai Police

Station let the accused free and suppressing all these facts, he registered a case

against the defacto complainant without any materials.

11. The learned counsel for the second respondent would rely

upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

(i) Ex.Constable Ram kumar v. Union of India reported in 2010 SCC

Online Del 3030.

(ii) State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in

1992 SUPP (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

(iii) Ramesh Kumari v. State and others reported in (2006) 2 Supreme

Court Cases 677.

(iv) Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in

(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1.

(v) Ramveer Upadhyay and another v. State of UP and another

reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 484.

(vi) Central Bureau of Investigation and another v. Thommandru

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 923.

12.The learned counsel for the second respondent would rely

upon a judgment of this Court in the case of K.Neelamegam v. State rep.

reported in 2011 SCC Online Mad 1986.

13. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that when A2,

who involved in a cognizable offence was got red handed and was handed

over to the Commissioner of Police with material evidence, the Investigation

Officer, Palayamkottai, released him with out even registering a F.I.R. But, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

suppressing the above facts the Investigation Offcier, Palayamkottai Police

Station, has registered a false case in Crime No.402 of 2021 against the

complainant without any materials. The action of the Investigation Officer

clearly reveals that he is colluding with the petitioner. An enquiry in this

regard is necessary . The second respondent reserve his right to initiate

proceedings against the Investigation Office, who is colluding with the

Accused.

14. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that when

there is a counter case pending, there is no necessity to stall the proceedings in

this case. After receiving a complaint regarding the cognizance offence, the

police have no other go but to register a FIR and that FIR cannot be stalled

by invoking the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

15.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that nine witnesses

were examined. The investigation was almost over. Only due to the stay order,

the prosecution could not file the chargesheet. There are materials available

against the petitioner-A1. The case is fit for trial. A counter case is registered

in Crime No.402 of 2021 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

16. This case was listed before me on 06.03.2023, 10.03.2023,

13.03.2023 and on 20.03.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner

Mr.Anand was not ready for arguments and on 20.03.2023, on the consent of

the petitioner counsel, the arguments on the side of the respondents 1 and 2

were heard and the case was adjourned to 29.03.2023 for the arguments on the

side of the petitioner. On 29.03.2023, another learned Counsel Mr. Ajmal

Khan filed change of vakalth and on his request, the case was adjourned to

30.03.2023. On 30.03.2023, this case was adjourned to 03.04.2023. On

03.04.2023, the written arguments was filed on the side of the second

respondent. On 31.03.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a

memo before the Registry to permit him to withdraw the petition.

17. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the

Criminal Original petition was filed on 05.01.2021 and a stay order was

granted on 08.01.2021 and the petitioner is enjoying the stay order for the past

2 ½ years and due to the stay order, there is no progress in the criminal case

and after allowing the respondent to argue the case and to file a written

submission, the petitioner has come forward to withdraw the case and he

prayed for a direction to fix a time frame, for the filing of the charge sheet.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

18. From the representation of the learned Government Advocate,

it is clear that the investigation was almost over and only due to the stay order,

the final report could not be filed.

19. In view of the above situation, on the basis of the memo filed

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is

dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to complete the

investigation and to file a final report within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

03.04.2023

NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Mrn/Ls

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

R. THARANI,J.

Mrn

Crl.O.P(MD).No.161 of 2021

03.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis