ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Ramanathapuram in Crime No.69 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are working as agents in a private concern and there existed some enmity between them, due to which, the first petitioner along with others abused the defacto complainant, attacked him with hands and caused injuries.

3. It is evident from the records that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.69 of 2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC and after completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has lodged the complaint after a delay of 12 days and there is a delay of two days in sending the FIR to the concerned Court.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Even assuming for argument sake, there is some delay in filing the complaint and sending the FIR to the concerned Court, that by itself is not a ground to quash the charge sheet at this point of time.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal ba