Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
S. Shanmuga Pandian - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 3687 of 2021 & Crl.M.P. No. 2199 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Manoharan, N. Ponraj, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, S. Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), R2, K.S. Karthik Raja, Advocate.

The court exercised its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice by quashing the FIR, as the allegations did not constitute the offenses mentioned in the FIR.

Headnote:
FIR Quashed - Criminal Trespass - Section 147, 447, 427, 294 (b), 506 (i) IPC - The court quashed the FIR dated 10.10.2020 in Crime No.819 of 2020, as the allegations did not constitute the offenses mentioned in the FIR. The court found the FIR to be concocted and improbable, especially with a pending civil suit between the parties. The FIR did not make out an offense under the mentioned sections of the IPC, and the court exercised its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.819 of 2020 dated 10.10.2020, alleging that the FIR was based on false and frivolous facts and sought an investigation. The defacto complainant claimed that the petitioner and others had illegally trespassed into the property and removed the fence and pillars put up by the defacto complainant. The petitioner contended that the defacto complainant lacked the authority to lodge the complaint and that the FIR was based on vague allegations.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR did not make out an offense under the mentioned sections of the IPC and that the allegations were concocted and improbable, especially with a pending civil suit between the parties. The court exercised its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The primary issue was the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR. The court also considered the genuineness of the allegations in the FIR and the timing of the complaint in relation to the alleged incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to determine the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also considered the genuineness of the allegations in the FIR and found that the FIR did not make out an offense under the mentioned sections of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR dated 10.10.2020 in Crime No.819 of 2020 and allowed the Criminal Original Petition. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to call for the records of FIR in Crime No.819 of 2020 dated 10.10.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR dated 10.10.2020 in Crime No.819 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent Police registered on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant. The complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant claiming to be a legal representative of one T.K.Rajeswari. It is his contention that the lands comprised in S.F.No.598, are situate opposite the Adithya Engineering College, near Kumaran Nagar and managed by the said T.K.Rajeswari.

2. It is the grievance of the defacto complainant that one Kowsalya had filed a suit O.S.No.442 of 2020 against the said T.K.Rajeswari in respect of the land measuring an extent of 0.14 acres in the above Survey number. While the suit is pending before the Civil Court and when there was an injunction granted by this Court, on 10.10.2020 around 3 AM in the early hours, Kowsalya, her father Shanmuga Pandian along with about 20 people had entered into the suit property and removed the barbed wire fence and destroyed the pillars which had been put up several years ago and had illegally trespassed into the said land.

3. It is the defacto complainant’s contention that he had been informed about this incident at around 8.30 in the morning and immediately he had rushed to the spot. At that point, he found that the petitioner was attempting to put a fence and the defacto complainant had stopped the petitioner and his people from putting the fence. The said incident was immediately informed to the 1st respondent herein. However, without listening to the defacto complainant and ignoring the right of the defacto complainant to the property, they had continued with the task of putting the fence.

4. When the defacto complainant attempted to stop Shanmuga Pandian, the petitioner herein, the said Shanmuga Pandian and his people abused him using obscene words and asked him to get out stating as follows . The defacto complainant informed them that he would not leave and thereafter the said Shanmuga Pandian and others threatened him as follows “unless you leave the place immediately we shall beat you to death and bury you in this very place”. Therefore, the complaint.

5. The defacto complainant had stated that while the Civil suit was pending, the petitioner along with his henchmen had illegally trespassed into the property and removed the fence and pillars put up by the defacto complainant. Therefore, he sought for an investigation.

6. The petitioner has now filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR in Crime No.819 of 2020 dated 10.10.2020.

7. The FIR has been taken on file for offences under Section 147, 447, 427, 294 (b) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter called the IPC against the petitioner and others. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the FIR on the following grounds:

(a) The registration of FIR without any enquiry is an abuse of process of law.

(b) The Civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal colour and the 1st respondent has mechanically registered the same, particularly when the FIR is based on vague allegations.

(c) The FIR has been lodged with the oblique motive of arm twisting the petitioner and his daughter into settling the Civil dispute.

(d) Since the complaint is based on false and frivolous facts, it has to be necessarily nipped in the bud as set out in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 = 1992 AIR 604 - State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal.

(e) The complaint taken as a whole does not make out commission of any offence by the petitioner.

8. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submission. He has at the outset questioned the authority / locus standi o