O RDER

This petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.33 of

2020 on the file of the 1st respondent Police registered against the petitioner /

sole accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.

2.The facts as per the records would go to show that when the defacto complainant and his friend were riding a two wheeler in his village, a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.TN-45-AV-3333 has hit the defacto complainant, thereby he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint in Crime No.33 of 2020 was registered as against the accused person.

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 2020, 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 three years have been lapsed from the date of registration of the FIR, under Section 473 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution can seek for condonation of delay in filing the charge sheet and thereby, at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.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 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 bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where t