BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16577 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10403 of 2024 Anand ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing-III, Madurai City, C-1, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.105 of 2024)

2.Balan ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.105 of 2024 on the file of first respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Meena For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section

528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders to quash the FIR in Crime No.105 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.105 of 2024 on the file of Traffic Investigation Wing-III, Madurai City.

3. It is evident from the records that on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 105 of 2024 on 02.07.2024 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had parked his car bearing Registration No.TN-67-BL-0092 and opened the door in a negligent manner, due to which, the second respondent, who had driven a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-59-AF-3273, hit the car and fell down and got injuries.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that though the accident was occurred on 20.06.2024, FIR came to be registered on 02.07.2024 and that the mode of accident projected by the prosecution is false and incorrect.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that in the accident, the second respondent has lost his leg and that investigation is pending.

7. Even assuming that there existed delay in filing the complaint, that by itself is not a ground to quash the FIR. Moreover, regarding the mode of accident, the same has to be invesigated and that cannot be gone into, in the present quash proceedings. Except the above, the petitioner has not canvassed any other reason or ground to impugn the FIR.

8. 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