Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38919
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
I. Nithyananda Raja – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P(MD)No.18410 of 2023 | CRL.MP(MD). No.14535 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dinesh.K
For the Respondents: M.Aasha, R.G.Shankar Ganesh
The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact; FIRs cannot be quashed solely due to delay or the civil nature of the dispute when investigating agencies are already tasked with examining the evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, and 420 - Criminal proceeding for alleged offences regarding property transfer and pension benefits - Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of inordinate delay and civil nature of dispute.
(B) Quashing of FIR - Scope of power - Held, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to determine disputed factual questions - Allegations of delay or purely civil nature must be substantiated, but cannot automatically result in quashing FIR if investigation is pending.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered in 2018 alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating related to the transfer of property and pension benefits of his late mother, initiated by his brother. The petitioner contended that the complaint was an afterthought, lacked supporting evidence, and was an abuse of process due to inordinate delay.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the FIR remained pending since 2018, the grounds raised by the petitioner were essentially factual. The Court declined to quash the FIR, directing the petitioner to produce relevant documents (e.g., gift deeds) before the Investigating Officer, and ordered the investigation to be concluded within six weeks.
Issues: Whether the FIR in question should be quashed due to inordinate delay and the civil nature of the dispute between familial parties.
Ratio Decidendi: Factual disputes cannot be resolved in proceedings to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely based on delays or claims of civil nature when the evidence requires investigation and objective consideration.
Result: Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of with directions to the investigating authority.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of fir and background allegations of property/pension issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding delay, civil nature, and abuse of process of law. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court refuses to quash factual dispute holding it for investigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court directs the authority to complete investigation within time. (Para 12 , 13) |
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.223 of 2018 under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC dated 15.05.2018 on the file of the respondent no.1 and quash the same.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed with the prayer to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.223 of 2018 which is registered for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC dated 15.05.2018 on the file of the respondent no.1 and quash the same.
2. The case of the de-facto complainant in the First Information Report is that the petitioner/accused had the custody of his mother and was taking undue advantage of that situation. The mother was pressurized to settle one property. Apart from this, he has transferred all of his mother's pension benefits into his own account. Furthermore, the amount belonging to the petitioner's brother was also wrongly transferred, despite the mother not having the right to transfer that property. It is seen that even though there is no stay till date, the FIR is kept pending.
3. Mr. K. Dinesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely nothing in this case for it to be investigated. It is an abuse of process of law. The petitioner and the de facto complainant being brothers, when the mother has voluntarily executed a gift deed in the year 2015 was very much alive till 2018, the petitioner did not raise his little finger until the lifetime of the mother. After the mother has passed away, all kinds of false allegations are made. The mother never gave any complaint that she has been pressurized. Since the petitioner only had been taking care of his mother, the mother had settled the property. In view thereof, he seeks quashment of the case.
4. The learned counsel would also rely upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. -vs- Gurbal Singh and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 and the relevant portion of paragraph Nos.21 to 23 reads thus:-
“21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. (Vide Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana [(1997) 7 SCC 231 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1049 : AIR 1997 SC 3247] .)
22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such
