The court emphasized that if allegations in an FIR do not constitute a prima facie case, the FIR can be quashed to prevent unnecessary trials.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.324 of 2023 dated 29.08.2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 143, 294(b), 353, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other persons conducted demonstration against the acquisition of agricultural land for the SIPCOT Industry project at Melma to Erumaivetti Road, without any permission from the respondent police. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.324 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 143, 294(b), 353, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act as against the petitioners. He would further submit that in respect of co-accused, this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.3228 of 2024, vide order dated 09.04.2025, had quashed the proceedings against the co-accused. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is about to file a final report.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and perused materials available on record.

6. It is to be noted that while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the Court should be slow, and at the same time, if the Court finds that from the entire materials collected by the prosecution taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, in such a situation, directing the parties to undergo the ordeal of trial will be a futile exercise and it will infringe the right of the persons and in this regard, the Apex Court, in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 has held as follows :

“........

(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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