The decision to quash a complaint or FIR on the ground of settlement between the offender and victim depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be evaluated based on the broad principles from precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.59 of 2021 as against the petitioner, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai and quash the same as illegal.

2. The second respondent/defacto complainant is the father of the accused who is the petitioner herein. The allegations made by the second respondent/defacto complainant is that, on 31.01.2021, the petitioner and his wife attacked and scolded the second respondent/defacto complainant and forced him to get out from the house. Thereafter, he has been admitted in KMC Hospital, Chennai and gave a complaint. On the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.59 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 342, 341 and 355 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are civil disputes pending between the second respondent/defacto complainant and his son in connection with the property claims. The complaint has been given with malafide intention, and a suit in O.S.No.9155 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner and his wife before the City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is pending. Even though the petitioner's wife also gave a complaint to the Police alleging harassment meted out to her by the second respondent/defacto complainant, no action has been taken by the first respondent Police so far.

4. Since the offences had not been taken made out, Section 294(b) of IPC ought not to have been attracted. The second respondent/defacto complainant was not kept under any restraint, even as per the allegations of the complaint, the offence under Section 341 of IPC is also not attracted.

5. A mere exchange of words during wordy quarrel cannot be sufficient enough to register the case under Section 506 of IPC also. Neither the petitioner nor his wife used any criminal force or intention against the second respondent/defacto complainant. Since there is a prima facie material available on record, the FIR should be quashed. The second respondent/defacto complainant, who is the father of the petitioner, had given a complaint by alleging that the petitioner and his wife were harassing the second respondent/defacto complainant and his wife and compel them to get away from the house.

6. The second respondent/defacto complainant had already settled the property in his name in favour of his son and his son had settled the property in favour of his wife. Only under these circumstances, the complaint has been given. Even though there might be a civil case pending between the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner, the FIR pertains to certain specific occurrence, which was said to have occurred on the night of 31.01.2021.

7. The allegations as it appears from the records are sufficient enough to attract the offence of assault. Subsequent to the occurrence, the second respondent/defacto complainant had taken treatment in KMC Hospital, Chennai. Since a reading of FIR would show that there are grounds to make out a case against the petitioner, the investigation should be allowed to go on.

8. At the threshold stage of the case itself, the Court cannot conduct roving enquiry. In these circumstances, it is for the prosecution to conduct a thorough investigation to unravel the truth. In order to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., there should be certain specific ground as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843]. In the said case in Paragraph 15, it has held as under:-

"15. The Broad Principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:-

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C pr