Madras High Court
S.Michael Arul Regan vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 March, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1241 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1241 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.852 of 2025
1.S.Michael Arul Regan
2. K.K.C. Balaganesan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Central Police Station
Thoothukudi District
2.Muthumari .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.224
of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as
illegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel
for Ms. Gandhi Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
for Mr.A.Sheik Nasurdeen
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1241 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.224 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent police
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the
first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 224 of 2024 for the
offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3),49,296(b),115(2), 351(3) of BNS
and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of TNPHW Act and even
according to First Information Report, this petitioner has not participated
in the occurrence and only allegation against the petitioner he instigated
other accused to commit the said offence. In order to constitute the
offence of abetment there are no ingredients and there is only a single
word mentioned in the First Information Report that at the instigation of
this petitioner and two others the occurrence had happened and thereby the
pending First Information Report is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the
second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 224
of 2024 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3),49,296(b),115(2),
351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of
TNPHW Act and the case is still under investigation. At this juncture the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief, through this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that there is a previous enmity between the petitioner and the
defacto complainant and at the instigation of this petitioner the other
accused have demolished the house of the defacto complainant and already
she made allegations against this petitioner in a press report and thereby
inorder to revenge the defacto complainant this petitioner along with
other accused demolished the building. Therefore she lodged a compliant
by mentioning the name of the petitioner. Now the case is under
investigation in preliminary stage, thereby the present petition is liable to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. This petition is filed to quash the First Information Report and
according to the petitioner there are no materials available as against the
petitioner to constitute the offence and the petitioner is arrayed alleging
that he abetted the offence. In fact the petitioner was not present in the
scene of occurrence and he has been falsely implicated. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the following
judgments:
a) Sumathi.vs. Selvam in Crl.O.P(MD)No.17228 of 2017
b) Usha Chakraborty and another .vs. State of West Bengal and
another reported in 2023 Live Law(SC)67
c)Mahmood Ali and others .vs. State of U.P and ors reported in
2023 Live Law(SC)613
d)Vishnukumar Shukla and another .vs. The State of U.P and
another reported in 2023 Live Law (SC)1019
e) Mukesh and Ors .vs. The State of U.P and others reported in
2024,SC 1149
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
7. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that 482
Cr.P.C.,jurisdiction has to be exercised with care and caution sparingly.
To exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and
only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse
of process of law and also 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 First Information
Report with care and a little more closely.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner in
the First Information Report and based on the First Information Report
they conducted investigation and the investigation is in initial stage,
therefore the petitioner has to wait till filing of final report. Hence at this
stage the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further the learned counsel
relied on the following judgments:
a)Ashabakl Machindra Adhagale .vs. State of Maharastra and others
reported in Law Finder Doc Id.181416
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
b)Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar .vs. State of Maharastra and others
reported in (2019)14 SCC 350
c) Mithilainathan and others .vs. The Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Staion, Ramanathapuram District in
9. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that
Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only
saves the inherent powers which the Court possessed before the enactment
of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised namely
a) to give effect to an order under the Code
b) to prevent abuse of the process of Court
c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
and the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has
not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material.
10.In the case on hand also as per the prosecution case there are
some allegations levelled against this petitioner to constitute the offence
of abetment. Therefore the investigation of the respondent cannot be
curtailed at this stage.
11. In view of the above discussions this Court is of the opinion that
the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered at the initial stage and the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
03.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Central Police Station
Thoothukudi District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 02:48:25 pm )
