Madras High Court
Panneerselvam vs State Represented By on 15 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12458 of 2023
Panneerselvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
(Crime No.363 of 2016)
2.J.Mathiyalagan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the case in
First Information Report in Crime No.363 of 2016 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking
quashment of FIR in Crime No.363 of 2016 on the file of the first
respondent police.
2.The facts, in brief, would go to show that on 25.09.2016 at about
10.00 pm., there was quarrel between the petitioner/accused No.1 and
others in respect of parking of the Car in the middle of the road. At about
10.30 pm., on the same day, the petitioner along with other accused went
to the defacto complainant's house and beat him. They also went to the
2nd respondent's brother house and threatened his mother with dire
consequences. A complaint has been preferred before the respondent No.
1 police by the petitioner, on which a case in Crime No.363 of 2016 was
registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC.
3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.1 police without conducting preliminary enquiry have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
registered the FIR against the petitioner. The respondent police failed to
file charge sheet in respect of the offence committed in the year 2016,
thereby there is a bar under 468 Cr.P.C., from taking cognizance.
4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
submits that even though seven and a half years have been elapsed from
the date of registration of the FIR under Section 473 of Cr.P.C., the
prosecution can seek for condoning the delay in filing the charge sheet
and thereby at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.
5.Heard both sides and perused the record.
6.While considering the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the Courts are required to be very cautious in quashing the FIRs because
it is not safe to throttle the investigation at the inception level itself
instead of allowing the investigating agency to complete the
investigation. However, whenever material placed before this Court to
show that continuation of investigation is abuse of process of law, this
Court can certainly intervene and stop the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for
exercising of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
quashing the criminal proceeding in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, which reads as follows:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but 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.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) 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.
(7) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
to private and personal grudge."
8.It is to be considered whether the case on hand falls in any one
of the categories of the judgment cited above.
9.Section 468 of Cr.P.C reads as under:
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no
Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category
specified in sub-section
(2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be—
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation,
in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be
determined with reference to the offence which is
punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case
may be, the most severe punishment."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
10. In the case on hand, the petitioner is charged under Sections
294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC, it is to be examined as to whether basing on
the contents of the FIR a charge sheet can be filed against the petitioners
after the lapse of more than 7 years.
11.Section 294(b) I.P.C. runs as under:-
“(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or
words, in or near any public place,shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”
12.Considering Section 468(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in
respect of Section 294(b) I.P.C. should have been filed within one year
from the date of offence.
13. Section 323 I.P.C. runs as under:-
“323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt —
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.”
14.Considering Section 468 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in
respect of Section 323 I.P.C. should have been filed within one year from
the date of offence.
15.Section 506(i) I.P.C. runs as under:-
“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation —
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;.”
16.Considering Section 468 (1)(c) of Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in
respect of Section 506(i) I.P.C. should have been filed within two years
from the date of offence.
17.In view of the above, since charge sheet has not been filed even
beyond three years of alleged date of occurrence, the FIR can be quashed
on the ground of limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
18.However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
there is a possibility for the respondent police to seeks condonation of
delay under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
19. Section 473 of Cr.P.C. runs as under:-
“Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance
of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it
is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
that the delay has been properly explained or that it is
necessary so to do in the interests of justice.”
20.Section 473 of Cr.P.C. applies where police files charge sheet
after expiry of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. but, it does not
mean that police can withhold filing of charge sheet any number of years,
even after expiry of limitation. The benefit of Section 473 of Cr.P.C. can
be availed while filing the charge sheet but police cannot circumvent
Section 468 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that they can file a petition for
condonation of delay under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
discretion of the concerned Court whenever an application is filed under
Section 473 of Cr.P.C. to grant or refuse to condone the delay. Section
473 Cr.P.C., cannot be used as a defence, when a petition seeking
quashment is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on the ground of delay
in investigation. Hence, the contention of respondent/police that since
Section 473 of Cr.P.C. is available, the FIR cannot be quashed on the
basis of Section under 468 of Cr.P.C. is not convincing.
21. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.363 of 2016 on the file of the respondent No.1 police
is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
DR.D.NAGARJUN,J
mm
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15677 of 2023
Dated: 15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
