Madras High Court
Sivabalan vs The Union Territory Of Puducherry on 20 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.21415 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21415 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.14766 of 2023
1. Sivabalan
2. Sugumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Union Territory of Puducherry
(Rep by the SHO Mudaliarpet PS)
Cuddalore Road,
Bharathidasan Nagar,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry – 605 004.
(Crime No.158 of 2023)
2. Udayakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the FIR No.158/2023 dated
12.08.2023 registered at PS Mudaliarpet.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sarath Chandran
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.M.V.Ramachandranmurthy
Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)
For R2 : Mr.P.Anbazhagan
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.21415 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime
No.158 of 2023 registered by the first respondent police for offences
under Sections 294(b), 323, 34, 506(1) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) &
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”), as
against the petitioners.
2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.158 of 2023, for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 34, 506(1) of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, alleging that the second respondent is
an Advocate and his wife is running battery service centre in the name of
Sri Kalaivani Battery Service and United Power System for the past ten
years. While being so, the first accused was in due with regard to their
business transactions, which resulted in three suits which are pending
before the civil Court at Pudhucherry. In order to settle the issue
amicably, the first accused called the second respondent to hotel
Arunachala at about 4 pm., on 09.11.2022. Believing said words, the
second respondent went to the hotel Arunachala and waiting in his car.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
Thereafter, the first accused called him to come to the room. After he
entering into the room, the accused persons closed the door. When the
second respondent insisted to settle the sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, for
which, the accused compelled him to receive 50% of the said amount.
While the negotiation was going on, the accused insisted to receive 50%
of the amount and when the second respondent refused to accept the said
settlement, he was attacked by the accused and was also abused using his
caste name. Thereafter, the second respondent escaped from their custody
and admitted into the hospital. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that for the alleged incident, the second respondent filed the private
complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.10821 of 2022
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Puducherry, and the
same was dismissed as not pressed by an order dated 19.12.2022. Once
again, suppressing the said fact, another petition has been filed under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.2754 of 2023 on the file of the
learned II Additional District Judge, Pudhucherry and obtained order for
registration of FIR. Even assuming that the allegations are true, the
SC/ST Act would not attract, since the alleged occurrence took place
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
inside the room and not in the public view. In order to attract the offence
under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence should
have been taken place within the public view. Therefore, the main
ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
Act, are not at all made out.
3.1. He further submitted that in order to attract the offence under
Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered by the person should have
annoyed others. Therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) is not at all
attracted as against the petitioners. Mere using of threat does not make
out a case for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC. He further
submitted that the second respondent is being an Advocate, he shall not
do any business. In fact, he is also facing case before the Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu in D.C.C.No.83 of 2023.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that the second respondent never conducted any business and
his wife is running the battery service centre in the name of Sri Kalaivani
Battery Service and United Power System. There are documents to show
that the first accused is in due of huge amount to the second respondent’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
wife. In fact, on the request made by the first accused, the second
respondent being an Advocate, went to the hotel Arunachala for
negotiation. When the second respondent went to the hotel for
negotiation, he was attacked by the petitioners and also he was abused by
using his caste name.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is seen that the earlier private complaint lodged by the
second respondent was dismissed as not pressed since the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Puducherry, has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint filed under SC/ST Act. Therefore, the second respondent not
pressed the earlier complaint and filed the present complaint in
Crl.M.P.No.2754 of 2023 before the learned II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry. Hence, there is absolutely no impediment to lodge second
complaint that too after withdrawal of the first complaint on the ground
of jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
7. Further it is seen from the First Information Report that there
are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence,
which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an
encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in
the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie
commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere
with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to
investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in the Code.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment
reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of
2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking
cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only
with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie
case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or
evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not
undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR
can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in
the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been
taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is
not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before
the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the
allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to
interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the
Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the
contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal
complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations
made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the
complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions
in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra &
ors., as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated
or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is
no substance in the application made by the complainant,
the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may
be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with
the known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a
cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to
consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has
to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR; .......”
10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of
the year 2023, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.158 of 2023 and file a final report within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before
the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The SHO,
Mudaliarpet PS,
Cuddalore Road,
Bharathidasan Nagar,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry – 605 004.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 05:32:25 pm )
