Madras High Court
Prakash vs State Rep. By on 29 September, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021
Prakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
C-5, Vengal Police Station
Thiruvallur.
(Crime No.513/2021)
2. Kumar ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crime No.513 of
2021 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.513 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, C-5 Vengal Police Station, Thiruvallur and quash the same as illegal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was transmitting defamatory allegations against the political party of the defacto complainant and thrown away the posters affixed by the defacto complainant conveying his gratitude towards his party for having appointed him as District Committee Member. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was uttering unparliamentary words through social media like Facebook against the political party of the defacto complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 complaint on the face of it does not make out any cognizable offence against the petitioner and there is no obscene language said to have been spoken by the petitioner in public view in an annoying manner. Further, he submitted that there is no ingredient to make out the case under Sections 153, 294(b), 427 and 504 IPC.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the alteration report is going to be filed to alter charges from 153, 294(b), 427 and 504 IPC to 294(b) and 504 IPC; The investigation revealed that the petitioner had made comments in his facebook and he had destroyed the posters affixed by the defacto complainant for expressing his gratitude to his party/chief.
6. On perusal of the records, it is shown that the complaint has been given out of the political allegiance of the defacto complainant. The words that are said to have been spoken by the petitioner seem to be very common and it does not have any obscene language. Further, the complaint does not disclose any offence under Section 294(b) IPC on the face of it. In order to commit an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 complaint shall contain the following ingredients as seen in the provision. For the sake of convenience, Section 294 IPC is reproduced hereunder :
“294. Obscene acts and songs - Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”
7. But the complaint does not have any obscene language or words in order to make out an offence against the petitioner under Section 294 IPC. Since the prosecution agency itself has arrived at a conclusion that there is no case made out for the offences under Sections 153 and 427 IPC, on this aspect no discussion need to be made.
8. The remaining penal provision is Section 504 IPC. As stated already, the word uttered by the petitioner is just a generalised common https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 word used by anyone who dislikes a political party. The above one sentence would not cause any provocation or brake any public peace as contemplated under Section 504 IPC.
9. The next allegation against the petitioner is that he had thrown away the posters affixed by the defacto complainant. Even according to the defacto complainant, he said to have affixed the posters in public view. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner had trespassed into his house or his office and spoilt any such posters. For tearing the posters which are affixed in public places without any permission, no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 504 IPC or in any other penal provision.
10. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein, it is held that when the material does not disclose any prima facie case to make out an offence and it is wasteful exercise to allow the investigation agency to do further investigation. The relevant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder :
“........
(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 bu 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 every 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 Institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) 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.”
11. Since it is appropriate case to quash the FIR, it does not require any further action.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.513 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent is quashed.
29.09.2022 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no To
1. The Inspector of Police, C-5 Vengal Police Station Thiruvallur.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 R.N.MANJULA. J, raja CRL.O.P.No.22861 of 2021 29.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8