Madras High Court
Pandidurai vs State Rep. By on 11 January, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.232 of 2022 and
CRL.M.P.(MD)No.146 of 2022
Pandidurai ... Petitioner / Sole Accused
Vs.
State rep. By,
The Inspector of Police,
Vilakkuthoon police station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.1346 of 2020) ... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.1346 of 2020
pending on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.1346 of 2020 registered on the file of the respondent for the offence under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2020 at about 10.15 p.m., the petitioner herein was found uttering abusive expressions and as a result, the petitioner is said to have caused hindrance to general public and also caused breach of public peace. Hence, Crime No.1346 of 2020 was registered. To quash the same, this criminal original petition has been filed.
4. It is not in dispute that the First Information Report was registered on 04.11.2020. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would claim that the final report was made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5 3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022 ready on the same day, it is not possible. This is because, the occurrence itself is said to have taken place on 04.11.2020 at 10.15 p.m. Therefore, on the same date, the First Information Report could not have been prepared. There is nothing on record to show that it was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court.
5. The offence under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act is punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. Therefore, final report should have been filed on or before 03.11.2021. We are now in January 2022. Till date final report has not been filed and no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in filing final report. A learned Judge of this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2020 made in Cr.O.P.(MD)No.1972 of 2020 (V.K.Gurusamy Vs. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police) has quashed the prosecution for non-filing of the final report within the stipulated time and where there is no explanation for the delay forthcoming. In the case on hand also, no explanation for non-filing of the final report is forthcoming. Of course when the matter was taken up for final disposal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5 4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022 filed a copy of the final report. It can be seen therefrom that not even a single witness from the generabl public has been examined. The allegations are very vague. It is not quite clear as to how the petitioner's conduct had the potential of causing of breach of public peace.
6. The petitioner's counsel would state that on the occurrence date, the petitoner got into a petty quarrel with an auto driver and that for this reason, the impugned First Information Report came to be registered against him. This is a case in which Section 95 of I.P.C. can also be invoked. The very registration of the First Information Report against the petitioner is unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned First Information Report is quashed.
7. This criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: 1. In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2. Issue order copy on 12.01.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5 5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU To:
1. The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon police station, Madurai City.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.232 of 2022 and CRL.M.P.(MD)No.146 of 2022 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.232 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5 6 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO. 232 OF 2022 11.01.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/5