Madras High Court
Periyasamy vs The State Rep By on 20 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.12803 of 2023
1.Periyasamy
2.Samathanam
3.Indhirani ... Petitioner/Accused 1, 9 & 22
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Navalpattu Police Station,
Trichy District.
(In Crime No.91 of 2019)
2.B.W.Abdul Thahir ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the records pertaining to crime No.91 of 2019 dated 22.07.2019 on the
file of the Inspector of Police, Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy District and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Yasar Arafath
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.91 of
2019 on the file of the 1st respondent Police registered against the petitioners /
Accused Nos.1, 9 and 22 for the offense punishable under Sections 147, 294(b),
447, 341, 323, 353 and 506(i) IPC.
2.The facts as per the records would go to show that the defeacto
complainant is working as a Security Person in the Ordinance Factory,
Trichirappalli where the petitioners and other accused persons are working as
contract workers. Since the management of that company has changed the
contractor, dispute arose between the petitioners and the management, thereby,
the petitioners and other accused persons have staged protest against the
management and prevented the defacto complainant to discharge his duty and
quarreled with the new employees on which the defacto complaint has lodged a
complaint basing on which FIR is issued in Crime No.91 of 2019 for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 447, 341, 323, 353 and 506(i)
IPC.
3.The major ground, on which the petitioners have sought for
quashment of FIR, is that the respondent police could not file the charge sheet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
in respect of the offence allegedly committed in the year 2019, thereby there is
a bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C., from taking cognizance.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, on
the other hand, submitted that even though four years have been lapsed from
the date of registration of the FIR, under Section 147, 294(b), 447, 341, 323,
353 and 506(i) IPC, the prosecution can seek for condonation of delay in filing
the charge sheet and thereby, at this stage, 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 FIRs, because it is not safe
and proper to throttle the investigation at the inception level itself instead of
allowing the investigating agency to complete the investigation. However,
whenever material is placed before this Court to show that continuation of
investigation is an abuse of process of law, this Court can certainly intervene
and stop the proceedings.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down some guidelines
for quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising inherent powers under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the case of State of Haryana vs. 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
(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 to private and personal grudge."
8.Now, it is to be considered as to 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
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."
10.In the case on hand, the petitioners are charged under Sections
147, 294(b), 447, 341, 323, 353 and 506(i) IPC. It is to be examined as to
whether based on the contents of the FIR, a charge sheet can be filed against the
petitioners.
11.Section 147 runs as under:-
147. Punishment for rioting —
“Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
12.Considering Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 147 IPC should have been filed within two years or with fine or with
both.
13.Section 294(b) IPC., 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.”
14.Considering Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 294(b) IPC should have been filed within one year from the date of
offence.
15.Section 447 IPC runs as under:-
“Punishment for criminal trespass —
Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.”
16.Considering Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 447 IPC should have been filed within one year from the date of
offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
17.Section 341 IPC runs as under:-
“Punishment for wrongful restraint —
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month,
or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with
both.”
18.Considering Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 341 IPC should have been filed within one year from the date of
offence.
19.Section 323 IPC., runs as under:-
“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 with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
20.Considering Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 323 IPC should have been filed within one year from the date of
offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
21.Section 353 runs as under:-
“Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge
of his duty-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a
public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant,
or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his
duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done
or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of
his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
22.Considering Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 353 IPC should have been filed within three years from the date of
offence.
23.Section 506(i) IPC reads as under:-
Para I: Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine,
or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-
Compoundable by the person intimidated
24.Considering Section 468 (2) (c) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 506(i) IPC should have been filed within three years from the date of
offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
26. However, the charge sheet has not been filed even after
completion of four years from the date of alleged occurrence, hence, the FIR
can be quashed on the ground of limitation.
27.However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent Police submitted that there is a possibility for the respondent police
to seek condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
28.Section 473 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.”
29.Section 473 Cr.P.C. applies where the Police files charge sheet
after expiry of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. but, it does not mean that
the Police can withhold the filing of the charge sheet any number of years, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
after expiry of limitation. The benefit of Section 473 Cr.P.C. can be availed,
while filing the charge sheet, but the Police cannot circumvent Section 468
Cr.P.C. on the ground that they filed condonation of delay petition under
Section 473 Cr.P.C. Further, it is the discretion of the learned Judge concerned,
whenever an application is filed under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to grant or refuse to
condone the delay. Hence, the contention of respondent Police that since
Section 473 Cr.P.C. is available, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of
Section under 468 Cr.P.C., is not convincing.
30.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.91 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent Police is quashed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Yuva/mvs.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Navalpattu Police Station,
Trichy District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16096 of 2023
DR.D.NAGARJUN. J.
Yuva/mvs.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16096 of 2023
20.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
