Madras High Court

Patchaiammal vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 September, 2023

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No. 7277 of 2020

1. Patchaiammal
2. Anjali ...Petitioners

1. The Inspector of Police
Chinnalapatti Police Station
Dindigul District

2. Senthiappan ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to quash the proceedings in
Crime No.30 of 2019 as far as the petitioners is concerned pending on
the file of the first respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.Swarnam J. Rajagopalan

For R-1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor

For R-2 : M/s.J.Saranya

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First

Information Report in Crime No.30 of 2019 on the file of the first

respondent police.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

2. According to the petitioners based on the complaint given by

the second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime

No.30 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147,148,294(b),324,

506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. The case of the prosecution

is that there is land dispute pending between the parties before the

District Munsif Court, Dindigul and due to that enmity there are

frequent quarrel between the parties and on 04.02.2018 at about 8.30

pm., when the defacto complainant and her mother were in the house

one latha W/o. Ganesan and Inbarasan scolded that why they have not

vacated the house and used obscene words and torn the shirt of one

Eswari. Thereafter latha and the mother of Inbarasan assaulted with

iron rod on the shoulder and then Anbarasan also assaulted the defacto

complainant and her mother. Further the accused persons caused

criminal intimidation that they have to vacate the premises otherwise

they would will her. Based on the said allegations the First Information

Report has been registered. Infact there is a land dispute between the

parties and due to that movie this vexatious complaint has been filed as

against these petitioners. So far as the offences mentioned in the First

Information Report are concerned no any offences are made out as

against these petitioners. Mere reading of the complaint and the

alteration report would show that it is an after thought and inorder to

show prima facie recorded further statement by implicating the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

petitioners is pure abuse of process of law. Further inorder to

constitute the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC the words uttered

must cause annoyance to others but the First Information Report does

not disclose any such annoyance. So far as offence under Section 506(ii)

of IPC is concerned no where in the complaint it is stated that due to

the words uttered by the petitioners they felt fear, therefore inorder to

wreck vengeance for the civil dispute this present complaint has been

given and hence the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

3. No counter was filed by the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

these petitioners are no way connected with the above said crime.

There is a civil dispute pending between the parties with regard to

vacating the premises and thereby the present complaint has been

lodged with false allegations. Even according to the First Information

Report these petitioners were not present in the place of occurrence

and no specific overt act has been attributed as against the petitioners

and there are only vague averments stating that due to the instigation

of these petitioners this occurrence said to have taken place. Since

there are no any prima facie materials in the First Information Report

and complaint the investigation officer wantonly got further statement

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

by implicating these petitioners and the same is abuse of process of

law. Even according to the further statement these petitioners only

instigated the other accused to commit the offence. Apart from that

there is no any materials as against these petitioners, therefore the

pending First Information Report is liable to be quashed. To support his

contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Salib Ali @ Shalu @ Salim .vs. State of U.P & Ors in Criminal

Appeal No. 2344 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P(Criminal) No.3152 of

2023.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

would contend that the second respondent is the tenant and inorder to

vacate the tenant without following legal procedures they adopted this

method and frequently they are making quarrel with the second

respondent and on the date of occurrence at the instigation of these

petitioners the other accused assaulted the defacto complainant and her

mother, thereby she gave complaint before the first respondent and

based on the complaint given by the second respondent the first

respondent registered a case and there are prima facie materials

available as against these petitioners, hence the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first

respondent would contend that based on the complaint given by the

second respondent the first respondent registered First Information

Report and thereafter investigated has been stayed by this Court and

thereby they are unable to investigate the case further. Further as per

the preliminary investigation the defacto complainant sustained injuries

and the offences are grave in a nature and thereby the matter requires

detailed investigation and at this stage the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is an admitted fact that there is a civil dispute pending

between the parties with regard to vacating the premises. Based on the

complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent

registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2019 for the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 294(b),324, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW

Act. According to the First Information Report there is no whisper about

these petitioners and the allegations in the First Information Report is

that on previous day of occurrence one Anjalai and Pachiammal scolded

the petitioners and thereafter on 04.02.2019 at about 8.30 pm., the

other accused namely Latha and Anbarasan involved in the occurrence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

and thereafter in the alteration report it is stated that these petitioners

instigated the other accused to commit the offence. Apart from this no

other allegation is made as against these petitioners. These petitioners

are women and no any specific overt act has been attributed as against

these petitioners and no ingredients are made out to constitute the

offences under Sections 294(b) of 506(ii) of IPC. So far as section 324 of

IPC is concerned there are specific allegations that one Latha and

Inbarasan attacked the defacto complainant. Since there is a civil

dispute pending between the parties the names of these petitioners

have also been included without any materials and even according to

the First Information Report there is no specific overt act attributed as

against these petitioners and only mere allegations that these

petitioners instigated the other accused to commit the offence is not

sufficient to constitute the offence as alleged in the First Information

Report.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib Ali @

Shalu @ Salim .vs. State of U.P & Ors in Criminal Appeal No.

2344 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P(Criminal) No.3152 of 2023,

wherein it is held as follows:

“26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr P C or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged”

10. On a careful reading of the above said judgment it is clear

that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15146 of 2020

Constitution to get the First Information Report quashed on the ground

that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted

with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such

circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the First Information

Report with care and a little more closely. In the case on hand also no

materials available as against these petitioners and due to civil dispute

these petitioners names also included, thereby the said case law is