O RDER

This petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.451 of

2016 on the file of the 1st respondent Police registered against the petitioner / first Accused for the offense punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and

506(i) IPC.

2.The facts as per the records would go to show that the defacto complainant is running a shop in the name and style of Indian Motor TVS at Othakadai, Madurai District and he married the sister of the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner asked the defacto complainant to sell his property. As he refused to sell the same, the petitioner and his sister waylaid the defacto complainant and abused him with filthy language. Hence, the case has been registered in Crime No.451 of 2016 for the aforesaid offences.

3.Apart from other grounds, the major ground, on which the petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR, is that the respondent police could not file the charge sheet in respect of the offence committed in the year 2016, thereby there is a bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C., from taking cognizance.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submitted that even though seven years have been lapsed from the date of registration of the FIR, under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) IPC, the prosecution can seek for condonation of delay in filing the charge sheet and thereby, at this stage, FIR cannot be quashed.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.While considering the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Courts are required to be very cautious in quashing FIRs, because it is not safe and proper to throttle the investigation at the inception level itself instead of allowing the investigating agency to complete the investigation. However, whenever material is placed before this Court to show that continuation of investigation is an abuse of process of law, this Court can certainly intervene and stop the proceedings.

7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down some guidelines for quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in

1992 SCC (Cri) 426, which reads as follows:-

"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 FIR 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 Co