Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice SUNDER MOHAN
S.Suganya – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector – Respondent
CRL OP(MD)/5554/2020
QUASHING OF FIR - MALA FIDE COMPLAINT - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - FIR quashed as it was mala fide and an abuse of process of law, where the complaint was initially closed by the police but later reopened and FIR was registered without any justification or change in circumstances, and the allegations were vague and made in retaliation to a complaint filed by the accused against the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC, alleging that they had trespassed into the complainant's house and attempted to strangle her. The petitioners claimed that the complaint was mala fide and filed in retaliation to a complaint filed by the first petitioner against the complainant under Section 498A IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was vague and did not disclose any specific offences, that the allegations were made in retaliation to a complaint filed by the first petitioner against the complainant, and that the procedure adopted by the police in reopening the closed complaint and registering the FIR was not in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the FIR was mala fide and an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR was mala fide and an abuse of process of law because it was filed in retaliation to a complaint filed by the accused against the complainant, the allegations were vague and did not disclose any specific offences, and the procedure adopted by the police in reopening the closed complaint and registering the FIR was not in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR as it was mala fide and an abuse of process of law.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5554 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.3067 of 2020
1.S.Suganya
2.G.Subramaniam
3.S.Jayalakshmi
... Petitioners/Accused 1 - 3
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
D-1 Thallakulam Police Station (L&O),
Madurai.
(Crime No.158/2020).
... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2.Uma
... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
records in Crime No.158 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash
the same as against the petitioners and thus render justice.
For Petitioners
: Mr.A.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R-1
: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2020
For R-2
: No appearance
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.158 of 2020 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences
under Section 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC.
2. The petitioners are the daughter-in-law and the parents of the
daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant/second respondent herein. The
allegation in the FIR is that the first petitioner had a matrimonial dispute with
the second respondent's son and she did not get along well with the second
respondent as well. She did not respect the second respondent and the first
petitioner and the second respondent's son did not get along well. While so, on
04.09.2019 at about 11.30 A.M., the first petitioner came along with her
relative, one Ragupathy and few other relatives in three cars and trespassed into
the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to strangulate her. The
allegation in the complaint is that the first petitioner along with her relatives
attempted to grab the property belonging to the defacto complainant in a
wrongful manner.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2020
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire
complaint is mala fide in order to neutralise the complaint given by the first
petitioner against the second respondent and her son under Section 498 A IPC.
The said complaint was registered on 02.12.2019 in Crime No.967 of 2019 on
the file of Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. The learned counsel
further submitted that the complaint lodged by the second respondent in CSR
No.1000 of 2019 was originally closed by the respondent Police on 05.09.2019,
stating that it is a family dispute between the first petitioner and her husband
and with advice to the parties to approach the Court to enforce their rights.
Thereafter, without any basis, the first respondent had reopened the said CSR
and registered the FIR. In the said FIR, it is stated that the first respondent on
orders registered the FIR. It is not known on whose orders, the said complaint
was reopened and FIR was registered. The learned counsel further submitted
that the allegations are vague in nature and none of the offences alleged have
been made out and hence submitted that the FIR is an abuse of process of law.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the complaint was initially closed directing the
parties to approach the Court for resolving their differences. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor also was unable to justify the subsequent
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2020
registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint which was earlier closed. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that an FIR was filed at
the instance of the first petitioner against the second respondent under Section
498A IPC and the instant FIR was registered thereafter.
5. Heard the learne
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
