Sheik Haneef vs The State Represented By
2023 Latest Caselaw 15590 Mad

Madras High Court

Sheik Haneef vs The State Represented By on 1 December, 2023

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.6907 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 01.12.2023

                                                           CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                    Crl.O.P.No.6907 of 2022

                Sheik Haneef                                               ... Petitioner

                                                             -Vs-

                1. The State represented by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Kangeyam Police Station,
                   Tiruppur District.

                2. Shameer                                                 ... Respondents

                Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
                Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.88 of 2021 on the file of
                respondent police and quash the same in as much as against the petitioner.
                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.V.Maharaja

                                   For R1               : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.side)


                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime

No.88 of 2021 on the file of respondent police.

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

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the

materials available on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is manufacturing and

selling the poultry feeding at Palladam in the name and style of M/s Star

Enterprises and M/s Hafsa Enterprises. The second respondent, being native of

Kerala used to purchase the poultry feed from the petitioner. The second

respondent purchased the poultry feed for a sum of Rs.37,19,905/- with a

promise to pay. When it was questioned by the petitioner, the second

respondent did not repay the same. Therefore, the petitioner kidnapped him for

ransom. Hence, the complaint.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in

Crime No.88 of 2021 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC.

5. A perusal of records revealed that the second respondent owes money

to the tune of Rs.37,19,905/-. In order to escape from the said liability, the

second respondent lodged a complaint, as if the petitioner kidnapped the second

respondent. There is no specific overtact to attract the offence under Section 363 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of IPC as against the petitioner. Only in order to wreck vengeance against the

petitioner, the second respondent has lodged this present complaint.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgment reported in (1992)

SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which

the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the

High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

"102.......... ...................

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Therefore, the registration of FIR is nothing but a clear abuse of

process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable

to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.88 of 2021 on the file of

respondent police, is hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

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

01.12.2023 (2/2) Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kangeyam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

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

mn

01.12.2023

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