Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN
C.M.Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector – Respondent
CRL OP(MD)/1081/2021
A prosecution can be quashed if the Court can come to the conclusion that the prosecution is attended by mala fides.
Headnote:
QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - MALA FIDE PROSECUTION - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - Petitioner filed a complaint against the defacto complainant, who in turn filed a counter-complaint against the petitioner. The court held that the counter-complaint was filed as a counterblast to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for having lodged the earlier case, and quashed the impugned proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the defacto complainant, who in turn filed a counter-complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the counter-complaint was filed as a counterblast to wreak vengeance on him for having lodged the earlier case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the counter-complaint was filed as a counterblast to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for having lodged the earlier case, and quashed the impugned proceedings.
Issues: Whether the counter-complaint was filed as a counterblast to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for having lodged the earlier case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 (1) Supp (SCC) 335], which held that if the Court can come to the conclusion that the prosecution is attended by mala fides, it can quash the prosecution itself.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned proceedings.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1081 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1081 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.499 of 2021
C.M.Raghavan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thatchanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Muthukumar ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records connected with the case in
C.C.No.653 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli and quash the same.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) for R.1
R2
: No Appearance
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first
respondent. Even though the defacto complainant has been served and
his name is printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to enter
appearance.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2020, the
petitioner while taking his vehicle had injured the dog belonging to
the defacto complainant. After the petitioner returned from his
agricultural field, when the defacto complainant questioned the
petitioner, the petitioner is said to have not only abused the
defacto complainant but also slaped him on his face. In this
regard, Crime No.252 of 2020 was registered on the file of
Thachanallur Police Station. Investigation was undertaken and final
report was filed. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 294(b)
and 352 IPC was taken and the case is presently pending trial in
C.C.No.653 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Tirunelveli. To quash the same this Criminal Original Petition has
been filed.
1/3
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1081 of 2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated
all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called
upon this Court to quash the impugned proceedings.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the first respondent submitted that no case for
quashing has been made out as the petitioner has been specifically
named by the defacto complainant and over tacts have also been
attributed.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went
through the materials on record.
6. It is seen that the petitioner had filed Crime No.247 of
2020 on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner’s case was
that on 03.05.2020 at around 10.00 a.m, when the petitioner was
about to start his car, he found a tiny dog underneath and that
after removing it, he started the vehicle. But the said dog once
again came near the vehicle and suffered a minor injury. Since the
injury was only minor, the petitioner left the place for his
agricultural field. When at around 01.30 p.m he returned, he was
surrounded by the accused and he was badly beaten up. The said case
was charge sheeted and taken on file in C.C.No.654 of 2020. The
defacto complainant herein namely Muthu Kumar was mentioned as the
second accused. Before the trial Court, the accused including the
defacto complainant pleaded guilty and paid fine. The petitioner has
enclosed the judgment in C.C.No.654 of 2020 dated 22.04.2021 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
state that the case on hand was given as a pure counter blast.
Though even according to the defacto complainant, the occurance had
taken place on 03.05.2020, complaint was lodged before Thatchanallur
Police Station only on 06.05.2020. The de
