Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
K.Jayachandran - Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.22217 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.15442 of 2023
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Prabakar
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja,
The absence of credible evidence and indications of malice led to the quashing of the FIR against the petitioner, establishing that criminal proceedings initiated without substantiation constitute an abuse of process.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b) and 506(i) - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act - Section 4(1)(j) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of intimidation and misconduct against a forest ranger for denying guests a bonfire and asking them to lower their voices - No credible evidence to support charges; FIR quashed due to lack of witnesses and indications of malice. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - Criminal proceedings initiated with ulterior motives and lack of evidence cannot be sustained. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a forest ranger, was accused of threatening guests after refusing their request for a bonfire due to safety concerns. The FIR was filed by court staff, not the guests, indicating potential fabrication.
Findings of Court:
The court found no credible evidence supporting the charges under IPC sections and noted procedural irregularities in the arrest and investigation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the charges under IPC sections were substantiated and if the FIR was an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence and the nature of the allegations indicated that the FIR was fabricated, thus warranting quashing.
Result: FIR quashed.
ORDER :
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.151 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2021, the Head Clerk of the District Munsif Court, Valparai, received information about the arrival of the family members of a Hon'ble High Court Judge at the forest guest house in Sirukundra. The petitioner, when approached by the guests about a bonfire, denied due to safety concerns with forest animals. Later, around 10:30 pm, after the guests were talking loudly on their cell phones, the petitioner ordered them to leave, allegedly threatening them while intoxicated. The guests vacated the premises and stayed in a hotel that night. The defacto complainant filed a report the next morning, leading to a case being registered against the petitioner for intimidation and misconduct under sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
4. The petitioner is the sole accused in this case. The petitioner, a forest ranger, on 21.09.2021, was contacted by the second respondent, to accommodate guests at the forest guest house. The guests arrived at the guest house in Sirukundra at about 7 p.m. without prior notice. Upon their arrival, the guests requested a bonfire, which the petitioner refused due to the presence of elephants in the area, as making a bonfire could attract wild animals. Later, the guests were seen standing outside the guest house, speaking loudly on their cell phones. The petitioner informed them that elephant herds were roaming nearby and if they continued making noise, it could attract them. Despite this, the guests refused to stay inside the room, reportedly due to resentment against the petitioner for denying permission to make the bonfire. As a result, they vacated the guest house and left the premises.
5. In retaliation, a false complaint was allegedly filed stating that the petitioner, in an intoxicated state, had quarreled with the guests. On 23.09.2021, while the petitioner was on his way to the Deputy Director/DFO Office, Pollachi, at approximately 8:10 am, he was called in for inquiry by the first respondent. The petitioner was arrested at 9:00 am on the same day and produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai. After intervention from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the petitioner was granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on 25.09.2021. However, the bail application filed by the petitioner on the day of his remand was adjourned to 28.09.2021, and despite this, the matter was not considered in a timely manner. In response, members of the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association protested by boycotting their work outside the District Forest Officer's office, voicing their disapproval of the petitioner's arrest.
6. Subsequently, under the instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the bail petition was expedited by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the petitioner was released on bail. Despite the petitioner being arrested at approximately 9:00 am, he was only produced before the Court at 6:30 pm, though the distance between the police station and the Court is only about 3 km. There appears to have been an unwarranted delay in remanding the petitioner, which suggests that the delay was designed to exact vengeance against him. The case against the petitioner is that he refused to allow the guests to make a bonfire and later asked them not to talk loudly on their cell phones outside the room. This led to a quarrel between the petitioner and the guests, ultimately resulting in the registration of an FIR and the petitioner’s subsequent arrest.
7. On perusal of the case diary, it is clear that following the registration of the FIR, the first respondent conducted en
