Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No. 198 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai and quash the same.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.198 of 2016, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakkottai. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer of Batlagundu, Dindigul District, second respondent herein, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.368 of 205 against the present petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 290, 291, 186, 187, 188 I.P.C., r/w 192(A), 158, 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 21(10) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 26.10.2015 against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 290, 291, 186, 188 I.P.C., r/w 192(A), 158, 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 21(10) of the Motor Vehicles Rules and that the case was taken on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis file in C.C.No.198 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. As per the above settled legal position, there must be a complaint by a public servant who is lawfully empowered under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and it is mandatory and that therefore, the non-compliance of the same, will make the proceedings void ab initio and as such, the charge sheet laid for the offence under Section 188 I.P.C., has to necessarily be quashed.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that no specific averments had been mentioned in the F.I.R to invoke the offences alleged in the F.I.R., that no specific overt act had been attributed against the petitioners in the final report, that there was no report or complaint from any public that the vehicle was driven rashly, that the respondent police has not sent any summons to the driver of the tractor to produce the documents relating to that vehicle, that there is no material in the final report that the petitioners have caused public nuisance and that the prosecution has neither shown that there was an order of injunction passed by the public servant nor that the same has been violated by the petitioners and that therefore, the respondent has neither averred nor produced any material to prove the alleged charges under Sections 290, 291 I.P.C., and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12. Now turning to Section 291 I.P.C., which deals with continuous of nuisance after injunction to discontinue. Under Section 291 I.P.C., the accused must either repeat or continue public nuisance and the accused must be enjoined by a public servant and that the public servant must be having authority under law to issue such an injunction so as to not repeat or continue such nuisance. Though the prosecution has alleged that the petitioners have violated the directions of the Police and the Revenue Officials and also the orders of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, they have not specified the directions or orders which have been violated by the petitioners. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the first respondent has not shown that the injunction order was in force at that point of time. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the averments made in the final report will not attract any of the ingredients under Sections 290 and 291 I.P.C.