Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Manikandan - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Madurai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 22702 of 2022 & Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 16060 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Criminal Original Petition - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Sections 143 and 188 IPC - Section 195 Cr.P.C - Section 30(2) of the Police Act - [Sections 195, 143, 188, 30(2)] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C, which bars taking cognizance of certain offences without a written complaint by the public servant concerned, and the requirement of a complaint by a public servant for offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. The court also considered the interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Police Act and its regulatory nature in relation to agitations. The judgment highlighted the necessity of a lawful complaint by a public servant and the lack of evidence to support the charges under Sections 143 and 188 IPC, leading to the quashing of the impugned FIR against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the 14th accused in a case, filed a petition to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.1425 of 2020, alleging false implication and lack of violation of Government Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned FIR was liable to be quashed as the charges under Sections 143 and 188 IPC were not supported by evidence, and there was a lack of lawful complaint by a public servant as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Issues: False implication of the petitioner, lack of violation of Government Rules, and the necessity of a lawful complaint by a public servant for offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The necessity of a lawful complaint by a public servant for certain offences, the regulatory nature of Section 30(2) of the Police Act in relation to agitations, and the lack of evidence to support the charges under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No.1425 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police was quashed as against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the impugned FIR in Crime No.1425 of 2020 on the file of respondent dated 15.09.2020 as against the petitioner.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.1425 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The petitioner is the 14th accused in a case registered in Crime No.1425 of 2020 on the file of Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police attached to Keelavalavu Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.1425 of 2020 on 15.09.2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC against 28 named persons and some other persons belonging to Keelavalavu, Vachampatty Village.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2020 at about 17.00 hours, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station along with his police team was on surveillance to prevent the crimes, on receipt of secret information, had proceeded to Keelavalavu Eriyur Road Junction in Tiruppathur to Melur Road, the petitioner and other had assembled unlawfully and staged a road-roko blocking the road between Tiruppathur to Melur Main Road protesting the respondent police in taking one Ramesh for enquiry with regard to history sheet rowdy file and that since the agitation was conducted without any permission from the concerned authorities, FIR came to be lodged.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not at all present in the occurrence place at that time, that though the petitioner had explained his situation to the respondent police, they have registered a case falsely implicating him for statistics purposes, that the petitioner has not violated any Government Rules, that the police officer, who registered the case, has been conducting investigation which is very much against law and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above application invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the police has no right to file the case under Section 188 IPC without getting prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate and that there is a clear bar for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, without a complaint, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
7. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 127-130 of 2008, dated 30.08.2010 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:
“20. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Cr.PC like sections 196 and 198 do not lay
AI
The central legal point established is that democratic dissent cannot be stifled by registering FIRs for expressing dissatisfaction with governance, and the guidelines for an offence under Section 18....
Requirement for a written complaint by a public servant for offences under Section 188 of IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that democratic dissent and protests must be protected, and the prosecution must prove the elements of alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The inability of police to register FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from an authorized public servant renders proceedings unsustainable.
The Court emphasized that if the allegations and materials do not prima facie constitute any offense, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process of law, justifying the quashing of procee....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to prove the elements of alleged offenses under Sections 143, 341, and 283 IPC, as well as the adherence to the tim....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
