Madras High Court
P.Eswaran vs The State Rep. By on 17 July, 2023
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.07.2023
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.No.19701 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.10749 & 10751 of 2021
P.Eswaran
...Petitioner
Versus
1.The State rep. by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Chengam, Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Chengam Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.A.Gowthamapriyan
...Respondents
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying to call for the records pending in Spl.SC.No.36/2020 dated
03.08.2020 on the file of the Special Court, Thiruvannamalai and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dhineshkumar
For Respondents – 1 & 2 : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent – 3 : Ms.S.Deepika
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.36/2020 dated 03.08.2020 on the file
of Special Court, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 31.03.2020, when the third respondent/de-facto complainant was
talking to a minor girl viz., Ramya, the petitioner/accused inquired the third
respondent/de-facto complainant about his whereabouts, for which, the
third respondent/de-facto complainant replied that he belongs to
Thokkavaadi Colony. At that time, the third respondent/de-facto
complainant was wearing a T-Shirt with the image of Dr.Ambedkar. So, the
petitioner/accused scolded the third respondent/de-facto complainant in
filthy language, particularly, abusing his caste and assaulted him, due to
which, the third respondent/de-facto complainant sustained injuries. Hence,
the third respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner/accused before the second respondent police. On the basis of his
complaint, the second respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.386
of 2020 against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections
294(b) & 324 of I.PC and 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
Thereafter, the first respondent police investigated the case and filed the
final report before the Special Court, Thiruvannamalai. Aggrieved over the
same, the petitioner/accused has knocked the doors of this Court with the
present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the
case of the petitioner/accused is that on 31.03.2020, when the third
respondent/de-facto complainant attempted to abduct a minor girl viz.,
Ramya, the petitioner/accused rescued the said minor girl. During the said
incident, the third respondent/de-facto complainant tried to assault the
petitioner/accused. Hence, the petitioner/accused handed over the third
respondent/de-facto complainant to the jurisdictional police. Without
disclosing all these facts, the third respondent/de-facto complainant lodged
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a complaint against the petitioner/accused as if the petitioner/accused
abused his caste and assaulted him.
3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that on the very same date
of said incident, the mother of aforesaid minor girl gave a complaint to the
second respondent police to take action against the third respondent/de-
facto complainant, but, the second respondent police did not come forward
to register a case against the third respondent/de-facto complainant. Only
subsequent to the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, the
second respondent police registered FIR against the third respondent/de-
facto complainant for the offence under Section 366(A) of I.P.C.
3.2. Actually, the petitioner/accused neither abused the third
respondent/de-facto complainant nor assaulted him. However, the
petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in this case and final report
has also been filed against him for the offences under Sections 324 of I.PC
and 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Hence, the learned
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel prayed this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner/accused in Spl.SC.No.36/2020 dated 03.08.2020 on the file of
Special Court, Thiruvannamalai.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
1 & 2 submitted that the case is pending for trial and Special Court,
Thiruvannamalai has issued summons to the parties for examination of
witnesses.
5. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that
the petitioner is an accused in Spl.SC.No.36/2020 dated 03.08.2020 on the
file of Special Court, Thiruvannamalai. The second respondent police
registered a case against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.386 of 2020 for
the offences under Sections 294(b) & 324 of I.PC and 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015. After investigation, the first respondent has filed a
final report before the Special Court, Thiruvannamalai for the offences
under Sections 324 of I.PC and 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
The prosecution cited 17 witnesses, out of which, 7 witnesses viz., third
respondent/de-facto complainant (L.W.1), Janarthanan (L.W.2),
Kanthasamy (L.W.3), Annadurai (L.W.4), Syedbasha (L.W.5), Veerabooma
(L.W.6) & Mala (L.W.7) are eyewitnesses to the incident occurred on
31.03.2020. The Doctor viz., Ranjitha who gave treatment to the third
respondent/de-facto complainant was examined as L.W.14.
6. From a careful perusal of the statement of witnesses viz., L.W.1 to
L.W.7 and L.W.14, it is crystal clear that the third respondent/de-facto
complainant has made out a prima facie case to proceed against the
petitioner/accused. The allegations against the petitioner/accused were
spoken by the witnesses L.W.1 to L.W.7 and L.W.14 before the police and
the first respondent has recorded the statement given by them.
7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has discussed in detail about the inherent powers of the
High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the following cases:
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) R.P.Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in
AIR 1992 SC 604
(iii) M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315
7.1. In the case of R.P.Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“6. .................................................... It is well-established that
the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash
proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused
person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High
Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an
interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay
down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this
inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of
cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised
for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be
possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or
continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may
amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing
of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the
criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this
category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the
offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence
arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first
information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed
or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to
hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the
criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third
category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling
under this category the allegations made against the accused person
do constitute offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence
adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of
cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case
where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and
cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or
may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or
not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it
would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent
jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be
sustained.”
7.2. Further, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan
Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued
seven guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in the exercise of its
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
inherent power vested by Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR/complaint,
which are as follows:
“(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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.3. Similarly, in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC
315, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
“80. ............, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an
interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be
adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no
coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the
final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our
final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter
XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court
will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases
(not to be confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the
other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in
the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or
that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance
with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in
the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The
court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits
of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court
while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of
investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be
passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not
require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically.
Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are
hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court,
the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order
of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the
accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court
shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or
till the investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of
the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim
stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters
while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the
High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is
warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can
consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such
an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court
of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no
coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be
adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.”
8. It is to be noted that the present case does not meet the parameters
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra.
Further, I do not find any merit in the present case.
9. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is
inappropriate to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner/accused in Spl.SC.No.36/2020 dated 03.08.2020 on the file of
Special Court, Thiruvannamalai. Hence, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.07.2023
mrr
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrr To
1.The Special Court, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengam, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.19701 of 202117.07.2023 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis