Raja vs The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 8322 Mad

                                                                        Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 14.07.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                               Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019
                                                           and
                                               Crl.M.P(MD) No.5343 of 2019

                 Raja                                                ...Petitioner/Sole Accused

                                                           Vs

                 1.The Inspector of Police,
                   Kottar Police Station,
                   Kanyakumari District.
                   Crime No.226 of 2019

                 2.Velumail                                            ...Respondents


                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the
                 proceedings in Crime No.226 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police
                 station and quash the same as it has no prima facie case as against the
                 petitioner.


                                  For Petitioner           : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

                                  For R1                  : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl. side)

                                  For R2                   : Mr.M.Ashok Padmaraj


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

                 1/12
                                                                        Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in Crime No.226 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police

2.According to the petitioner, the prosecution case is that one Velumail

S/o Bagavathi Asari, lodged a complaint before the first respondent police by

stating that his son is working as an Assistant Manager in the L & T Finance

Limited, Kattayanvilai Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. He was

continously tortured and threatened by his superior with the help of rowdies.

In view of the above torture, his son committed suicide by hanging himself in

his house and the same was seen by his mother when she returned home. This

was informed to the de-facto complainant and he lodged the above complaint

on 08.06.2019 before the first respondent police and the first respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.226 of 2019 for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC. In fact, the petitioner is Meeting Center Manager, whose

profile includes to verify the documents for lending loan, recovery of loan

given to the customers and report the sales and collections numbers to the

Regional Manager of L & T Finance. The petitioner being the Meeting Centre

Manager, six persons are reporting to him and the deceased was one among

them. The deceased joined in this team only in the month of March 2018 and

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

after that several complaints were received from the customers that the

collected amounts from the customers were not deposited with the petitioner

in turn to deposit with the company. When the Finance Company questioning

about the shortfall in the collection with the petitioner, he started investigation

and found that the irregularity was committed by the deceased. When the same

was questioned on 10.05.2019 without any answer, he has stopped to come for

the work. The Human Resource Department had sent a warning letter to the

deceased on 17.05.2019 for his unauthorised absence from 11.05.2019 and

directed him to report to the duty within 72 hours. The said letter was received

by the deceased on 22.05.2019. After the said letter, he has not turned up to

the duty and there is no reply from him. In view of the above, the HR

Department had terminated him from service by letter dated 25.05.2019 and

the same was also acknowledged by the deceased on 30.05.2019. The

deceased apprehending recovery and committed suicide only on 08.06.2019.

The father of the deceased made a complaint before the first respondent police

and the first respondent police also registered the First Information Report for

the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, this petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that

the deceased was unauthorisedly absent from 11.05.2019 and thereby issued

warning letter dated 17.05.2019 and the same was received by him on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

22.05.2019. Thereafter, he never returned to his work and then on 25.05.2019,

another letter was issued for his termination and the same was also

acknowledged by the deceased on 30.05.2019. In the meantime, the deceased

died on 08.06.2019 and on the date of death of the deceased, he was not at all

working in the petitioner's company. Even according to the FIR, there are no

averments to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, thereby, the FIR is

liable to be quashed. To support his contention, he relied upon the Judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (i) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State

of Gujarat and Anr reported in 2010 (8) SCC 628 and (ii) Vaijnath Kondiba

Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2018 (7) SCC

4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would

contend that the case is at initial stage. Without elaborate investigation, this

Court cannot decide the veracity of the FIR and the FIR is also not an

encyclopedia to state all the things and the offence alleged against the

petitioner is severe in nature. In this case, there is a suicide note and that also

has to be investigated elaborately and after investigation only, the truth will

come. Thereby at the initial stage, this Court cannot invoke the provision

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first

respondent would contend that the case is under investigation and there is a

suicide note and as per the suicide note, prima facie case has been made out

and there are some allegations as against the petitioner and it needs elaborate

investigation and thereby at this stage, the petition is not maintainable and it is

liable to be dismissed.

6.This Court heard the arguments advanced by the either counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

7.On perusal of the records, it shows that the First Information Report

has been registered as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306

IPC. According to the contents of the FIR, the petitioner, namely, Raja

continuously tortured the son of the de-facto complainant and threatened with

unruly elements and thereby, induced to commit suicide and also wrote about

the suicide note. According to petitioner, these averments of the FIR will not

constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC and thereby, the FIR is liable to

be quashed. To support his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in 2010 (8)

SCC 628, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

“..7.We have gone through the suicide note though it is not yet on record. Shri Tulsi pointed out that even if this suicide note is accepted as it is, along with the FIR, no ingredients of Sections 306 and 294(b), IPC could be spelt out from the same. We have gone through the whole FIR as well as the so-called suicide note which seems to have been signed on 04.02.2008 wherein he had complained about the stale incidents dated 15.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. It seems that it is 17 days after that, that he was found dead 23.02.2008. It is claimed by his wife Harshida Ben that she got a call from the Gujarat High Court informing her that a suicide note was found and that she should search for such note in her house subsequent to which she claimed to have found the suicide note bearing the signature of the deceased, thus bringing the origin of alleged suicide note under the cloud of suspicion.”

He further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

reported in 2018 (7) SCC 781, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

“..8.In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the material on record. There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in her reporting to the police.

It is true that if a situation is created deliberately so as to drive a

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting Section 306 IPC. However, the facts on record in the present case are completely inadequate and insufficient. As a superior officer, if some work was assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind or criminal intent. The exigencies of work and the situation may call for certain action on part of a superior including stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month. That action simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer against such superior officer. The allegations in the FR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed.”

As far as the Judgments submitted by the petitioner are concerned on

careful reading of the above judgments, it is clear that if the FIR did not

disclose any commission of offence under Section 306 IPC and the said FIR is

liable to be quashed.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India formulated the guidelines in quashing the FIR and complaint under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in

Paragraph Nos.(ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (xii) and (xv), which reads as follows:

“...(i)......

(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

(iii).........

(iv).............

(v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

(vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

(vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

(viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate 59 WWW.LIVELAW.IN LL 2021 SC 211 in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

(ix)..............

(x).............

(xi)..............

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

(xiii)...............

(xiv)................

(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.

The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;”

9.On careful reading of the Judgments, it is clear that this Court while

exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, should be exercised

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare

cases. Further, while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is

sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

gunineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the

criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. In the case an

hand also, the petitioner challenged the FIR, which is in initial stage. As the

guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

this Court has to use the power of under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., sparingly and

criminal proceeding ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Though the

Judgments relied by the petitioner are relating to the averments in the FIR, the

Full Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India categorically

framed the guidelines. According to the guidelines, this Court need not quash

the FIR in the present case and it has to be elaborately investigated, since the

suicide note is also involved in this case. Therefore, by relying the Judgment

of our Full Bench of our Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is declined to quash

the FIR at this stage and the petition is dismissed.

10.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the second respondent

sought for direction to expedite the investigation process.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

11.Considering the above, the first respondent is directed to complete

the investigation as early as possible within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

14.07.2023

NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No sji

To

The Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

P. DHANABAL,J.

sji

Crl.O.P(MD).No.8493 of 2019

14.07.2023

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