SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Zahir Hussain - Petitioner
Versus
State, Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Esplanade Police Station & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 25981 of 2017 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 14988 and 14989 of 2017
Decided On : 31-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.R. Shankaralingam, Mr. Raj Thilak, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. L. Infant Dinesh.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 292, 506, 503 – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 161(3) - Criminal Original Petition - Obscene acts and songs - Sale, etc, of obscene books etc - Punishment for criminal intimidation - Respondent / complainant has averred in his complaint that respondent is doing a construction business - He entered into partnership with one and was running a business in name and style - Through said partnership, they undertook two construction projects - He joining with his son, petitioner herein, with ulterior motive failed to cooperate and produce necessary documents and release project funds from firm Bank account - Whenever 2nd respondent requested for showing registered documents of sale transactions in connection with firm - He simply washed away his hands by saying that his son i.e. petitioner herein is in control of it and he has no say on it - In this regard, when 2nd respondent contacted petitioner, he reacted very abusively and threatened 2nd respondent that if he insist on his share in partnership firm, petitioner will do away with his life - whether uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish offence - Whether it is expedient and in interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue – Held, Court finds that petitioner has not made out any plausible ground for quashing final report or charge sheet - It is absolutely clear from records that charge sheet has been laid after recording the statements from the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C - Statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, it is clear that petitioner herein is only trying to conduct a trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that unless on a plain reading of F.I.R or Charge Sheet strikes concious of Court that FIR or Charge Sheet cannot sustain a scrutiny of a trial, interference by Courts are limited only to that extent - However, in present case, this Court does not find such blatant facts on reading FIR or Charge Sheet that it cannot sustain trial - In FIR as well as in Charge Sheet, on a conjoint reading of statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, it is evidently clear that present petition cannot be considered for interference of this Court - Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records in C.C.No.91 of 2017 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The 2nd respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the 1st respondent police for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.

3. The 2nd respondent / complainant has averred in his complaint that the 2nd respondent is doing a construction business. He entered into partnership with one Mr. M.B. Khalilur Rehaman and was running a business in the name and style of M/s.City Property Consultants. Through the said partnership, they undertook two construction projects. The said Khalilur Rehaman joining with his son Mr. Zahir Hussain, the petitioner herein, with ulterior motive failed to cooperate and produce necessary documents and release project funds from the firm Bank account. Whenever, the 2nd respondent requested Mr.Khalilur Rehaman for showing the registered documents of the sale transactions in connection with the firm. He simply washed away his hands by saying that his son i.e. the petitioner herein is in control of it and he has no say on it. In this regard, when the 2nd respondent contacted the petitioner, he reacted very abusively and threatened the 2nd respondent that if he insist on his share in the partnership firm, the petitioner will do away with his life. The 2nd respondent with no other option intimated Mr. Khalilur Rehaman that he is going to initiate legal action against them. For the said, the petitioner who is no way connected with the partnership firm with malafide intention to knock away the partnership sale proceeds and profit conducted Katta Panchayat using his political connection, money and muscle power. Thereafter, on 20.01.2016 at about 11.00 am, the petitioner came to the office of the 2nd respondent situated at 8/7, Stinger Street, Siva complex and threatened him and his brother that he will kill them by utilizing the hire killers. In this connection, on 12.03.2016 at 12.15 pm, two unknown persons came to the office situated at 8/7, Stinger Street, Siva Complex and using filthy language they threatened the 2nd petitioner and his brother that they will finish of their life, if they not toe line with the petitioner and partway their share and interest in the said partnership firm. Hence the 2nd respondent / complainant has requested to take necessary action against the above stated person.

4. The complaint given by the 2nd respondent is pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition before this Court stating that the complainant and the petitioner's father are partners doing construction business to sort out their business disputes the petitioner was taken for the task by the complainant and he is no way directly or indirectly connected with their business. Further it has been stated by the petitioner that there was unexplained delay in preferring the above compliant and the FIR reached the Court only after 6 days therefore the 1st respondent did not follow the procedure established by law. Moreover it has been stated by the petitioner that when there is no material to establish prima facie case against him, the 1st respondent ought not to have filed a final report in a hasty manner. It has also been stated by the petitioner that during the investigation, the 1st respondent has never stated that he had used filthy language and the employees working in the office of the complainant also not stated about the abuse words by him. Hence the alleged offence of abusing in filthy language and threatened the complainant with criminal intimidation does not arise.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Hon'ble Court has held in a similar case that to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the accused should have abused the complainant in

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top