Madras High Court
V.Amutha vs A.Balamurugan on 29 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.25 of 2020
1.V.Amutha
2.A.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
Vs.
A.Balamurugan ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.
210 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Karur and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Prabakar
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate-II, Karur.
2.According to the petitioners, the respondent had given private
complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karur and based on
the complaint, cognizance was taken as against the petitioners for the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC in C.C.No.210 of 2019.
According to the petitioners, the respondent had filed complaint alleging
that this petitioners applied for loan from the co-operative bank. On
07.03.2018, at about 4.30 pm., the first accused asked about the loan to
the Secretary (in charge) and he replied that he is only incharge and the
President was on leave. Immediately, the first accused asked about the
files and the same was also shown to her. At that time, she torn the
papers, i.e., loan applications, patta, chitta. The said incident was
informed to the defacto complainant over phone. Thereafter, the
complainant came to the bank and gave a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police on 08.03.2018. But no action was taken. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
mean time, the tenure of the defacto complainant was over and again on
11.08.2018 he was appointed as incharge of the society. While so,
complaint was forwarded to the jurisdictional police station and the same
was enquired. Thereafter, no action was taken. Then, again on
21.12.2018, at about 05.00 pm., the defacto complainant, Pradeep,
Maruthaee, Marimuthu were standing infront of Society. At that time, the
first accused came there and abused the defacto complainant in filthy
language and both the accused abused him and also threatened him about
the complaint given by him. The second accused threatened him by
showing knife. Thereby, he lodged the above said compliant before the
learned Magistrate. Based on the complaint, the learned Magistrate taken
cognizance. The said complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive to the
previous enmity between them with regard to the sanctioning of loan. In
fact, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties in O.S.No.478 of
2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, due to which, present complaint
was lodged by giving colour of criminal to the civil dispute. Even
according to the complaint, the allegations are vague and it shows the
intention of the complainant to rope the petitioners into the criminal case.
Already police have enquired the complaint given by the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
complainant and the same was closed. Therefore, the pending
proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2019 is pure abuse of process of law and
the same is liable to be quashed.
3.No representation for the respondent. After hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioners, this case was so many times posted for
respondent’s side arguments. However, none appeared on behalf of the
respondent. Therefore, this Court is passing orders based on the
available records.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend
that the respondent herein has filed private complaint before the learned
Judicial Magistrate II, Karur and the same was taken cognizance in
C.C.No.210 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC.
Even according to the complaint, offences are not made out and already
civil dispute is pending between the parties in O.S.No.478 of 2015
pending on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. Thereby, in order to give
criminal colour to the civil dispute, the present complaint lodged. Even
as per the complaint, the same was drafted with specific words in order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
to rope the petitioners with criminal case with malafide intentions.
Further, the respondent has not produced any documents with regard to
the incident taken place on 21.12.2018. He enclosed the documents in
the petition with regard to the previous incident alleged to have been
committed by the first accused. Therefore, the pending private complaint
in C.C.No.210 of 2020 is liable to be quashed.
5.Heard petitioner’s arguments and perused materials available in
the records.
6.On perusal of records reveals that the respondent had given
complaint alleging that this petitioners applied for loan from the co-
operative bank. On 07.03.2018, at about 4.30 pm., the first accused
asked about the loan to the Secretary (in charge) and he replied that he is
only incharge and the President was on leave. Immediately, the first
accused asked about the files and the same was also shown to her. At
that time, she torn the papers, i.e., loan applications, patta, chitta. The
said incident was informed to the defacto complainant over phone.
Thereafter, the complainant came to the bank and gave a complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
before the Superintendent of Police on 08.03.2018. But no action was
taken. In the mean time, the tenure of the defacto complainant was over
and again on 11.08.2018 he was appointed as incharge of the society.
While so, complaint was forwarded to the jurisdictional police station
and the same was enquired. Thereafter, no action was taken. Then, again
on 21.12.2018, at about 05.00 pm., the defacto complainant, Pradeep,
Maruthaee, Marimuthu were standing infront of Society. At that time, the
first accused came there and abused the defacto complainant in filthy
language and both the accused abused him and also threatened him about
the complaint given by him. The second accused threatened him by
showing knife. Thereby, he lodged the above said compliant before the
learned Magistrate. The respondent has produced records along with
complaint. But the said documents pertaining to the previous occurrence
i.e., tearing papers. But in the complaint there is no reference with
regard to the occurrence taken place on 21.12.2018. Even according to
the complaint, the occurrence was taken place on 21.12.2018, but the
complaint was given on 29.01.2019. The delay has not been explained.
According to the petitioners, civil dispute is pending in O.S.No.478 of
2015 and the same was suppressed by the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
7.On careful perusal of the complaint, it reveals that the allegations
are vague and general and even according to the previous complaint, the
person who shown the records of the said occurrence, has not given any
complaint. Further, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and
the above said threat was not created any fear on the mind of the defacto
complainant. There is no reference about the fear caused to the defacto
complainant.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2023 SCC online SC 947 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:-
At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. 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 Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
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 CrPC 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
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.
9.On careful perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that 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 CrPC 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
10.In the case on hand also the complainant has suppressed that
civil dispute pending between the parties and also did not give complaint
before the police station immediately after the occurrence and allegations
are also general and vague and the complaint was given with malafide
intentions and thereby, the above said case law is squarely applicable to
the present facts of the case. Therefore, the pending proceedings in
C.C.No.210 of 2019 is clear abuse of process of law and the same is
liable to be quashed.
11.In view of the above discussions, this criminal original petition
is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2019 pending on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Karur is hereby quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
To
The Judicial Magistrate-II,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
P. DHANABAL,J.
gns
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.106 of 2020
29.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
