Madras High Court
Seenivasan @ Srinivasan vs State Through The Inspector Of ... on 20 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 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.16090 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.12781 of 2023
Seenivasan @ Srinivasan ... Petitioner/1st Accused
Vs.
1.State through the Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(In Crime No.451 of 2016)
2.Ramamoorthy ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the entire records in Crime No.451 of 2016 pending on the file of the 1 st
respondent Police and quash the same as illegal against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Peer Mohammed
For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.451 of
2016 on the file of the 1st respondent Police registered against the petitioner /
first Accused for the offense punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and
506(i) IPC.
2.The facts as per the records would go to show that the defacto
complainant is running a shop in the name and style of Indian Motor TVS at
Othakadai, Madurai District and he married the sister of the petitioner. The
sister of the petitioner asked the defacto complainant to sell his property. As he
refused to sell the same, the petitioner and his sister waylaid the defacto
complainant and abused him with filthy language. Hence, the case has been
registered in Crime No.451 of 2016 for the aforesaid offences.
3.Apart from other grounds, the major ground, on which the petitioner
has sought for quashment of FIR, is that the respondent police could not file the
charge sheet in respect of the offence committed in the year 2016, 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 seven years have been lapsed from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
the date of registration of the FIR, under Section 294(b), 323, 324 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
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 petitioner is charged under Sections
294(b), 323, 324 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 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.”
12 .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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
13.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.”
14.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.
15.Section 324 IPC., runs as under:-
“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means —
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,
stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated
substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance,
or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to
swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
16.Considering Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet in respect
of Section 324 IPC should have been filed within three years from the date of
offence.
17.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
18.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.
19.In view of the above, since the charge sheet has not been filed
even beyond seven years of the alleged date of occurrence, the FIR can be
quashed on the ground of limitation.
20.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
21.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.”
22.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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16090 of 2023
23.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.451 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st 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,
Othakadai Police Station,
Madurai 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.16090 of 2023
D.NAGARJUN. J.
Yuva/mvs.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16090 of 2023
20.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
