Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4729
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
N.S. Rama Rao
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police
Crl.O.P.No.6916 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.2602 of 2005
Decided on: 19-12-2008
For the Petitioner:M. Aravind Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent: J. Paul Noble Devakumar, G.A.
The main legal point established is that the abuse of process of court can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, as determined by the application of previous judgments.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Court - Criminal Offences - IPC 403, 411, 414, 420, 424 - [State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs. R.K.Srivastava and another, Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the F.I.R. registered against him for alleged offences under IPC sections 403, 411, 414, 420, and 424. The petitioner argued that the F.I.R. amounted to a second F.I.R. and the allegations did not constitute an offence. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support his case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and result in a miscarriage of justice. The F.I.R. against the petitioner was quashed, allowing the respondent to investigate the case against other accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the F.I.R. as a second F.I.R., the sufficiency of allegations to constitute an offence, and the applicability of previous judgments to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from previous judgments to determine that the F.I.R. against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process of court and should be quashed.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the F.I.R. against the petitioner was quashed, allowing the respondent to continue the investigation against other accused.
1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and he filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.541 of 2001 registered against him by the respondents for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 403, 411, 414, 420 and 424 of IPC.
2. In the F.I.R, the defacto complainant viz., S. Srinivasan, Director of Kilburn Electricals Ltd., Chennai-12, alleged among other things that one S. Suryanarayanan, who was employed by the complainant as a Development Manager, said to have taken out the design drawings and sample components with regard to the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers etc. which was developed by the complainant and after joining the services of the N.S. Rama Rao Body Works, Chennai-32, he used the said drawings etc., and manufactured the said product and marketed them also and thereby caused loss to the complainant’s company.
3. Heard Mr. M. Aravind Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. Paul Noble Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, the same complainant has given complaint against S. Suryanarayanan to the respondent herein who registered a case in X Crime No.1101/97 under Section 408 of IPC. The respondent after investigation has filed a final report on 14. 2001 closing the case and the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant was also dismissed. Hence the present F.I.R itself verbatim production of the earlier F.I.R amounts to second F.I.R and the same is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegations made in the F.I.R do not constitute commission of offence and that the petitioner herein has not been specially implicated for the alleged commission of the offence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments.
1. (1989)4 SCC 59 - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs. R.K.Srivastava and another.
2. (2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others.
3. 2007 SCCL.COM.1042 - Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others.
4. 2008 AIR SCW 4634 - V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr.
5. In (1989)4 SCC 59) - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs. R.K. Srivastava and another, on the facts of the case it was held that the allegations made in the F.I.R do not constitute any offence of cheating or forgery and as such the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court.
6. In (2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others, the principle relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the complaints and Criminal Proceedings are enunciated, which are as follows:
"(i) A complainant can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complainant has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
.(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factu
