P.Nallusamy v. Rasipuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.06.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.O.P.No.28862/2004, Crl.M.P.No.8954 of 2004 and Crl.M.P.No.841 of2006P.Nallusamy...PetitionerVs.1)The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Rasipuram2)The Inspector of Police,Aiyil Patti Police Station,Aiyil Patti,Rasipuram (Taluk)Namakkal District3)V.Rajkumar... RespondentsThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and quash the FIRNo.193/2004 Dt.27.07.2004 on the file of the Inspector of Police,Ayilpatti Police Station.For Peititioner: Mr.M.Shanmugavelayutham, for S.T.S.Murthy,For Respondents: Mr.Paul Nobel Devakumar (for R1 and R2)O R D E RAccused No.1 in Crime No.193/2004 registered on the file ofAyilpatti Police Station, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District for theoffences punishable under Sections 469, 471, 211, 182, 167 and 109IPC and Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes &Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has brought-forth this petition to quash the said FIR invoking the inherent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can bebriefly stated as follows:-As on the date of filing of the petition, P.Nallusamy, thepetitioner herein was the Secretary of Coimbatore AgriculturalMarketing Committee, a Government Department. Previously he wasworking as the secretary of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committeebetween 21.01.1999 to 14.02.2002. On 09.04.1999, the petitioner senta complaint in writing to the Inspector of Police, NamagiripettaiPolice Station stating that he received complaints fromagriculturists, traders and the Secretary of Rasipuram AgriculturalTraders Cooperative Marketing Society, Rasipuram to the effect thatcertain unknown persons posing themselves to be officers of the"Flying Squad" of the Salem Marketing committee intercepted thevehicles of traders and agriculturists and extracted money from them.It had also been stated in the complaint that there was no such"Flying Squad" in the Salem Marketing Committee. The Inspector ofPolice had been requested by the petitioner to take appropriateaction against the persons indulging in such illegal activities.Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in CrimeNo.226/1999 on the file of Ayilpatti Police station for offencespunishable under Section 419 and 384 IPC. The Inspector of Police,Rasipuram took up the investigation of the case and informed thepetitioner herein by his letter dated 20.04.1999 that oninvestigation he came to know that the 3rd Respondent herein who wasworking as Supervisor in Karumanthurai Agricultural Regulated Marketand one Mr.Chinnasamy, Office Assistant in the same market along witha private car driver named Raja were responsible for the illegal actsalleged in the complaint and that they were also arrested by thepolice in connection with the said case. After completion ofinvestigation, a final report was submitted, which was taken on fileby the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram as C.C.No.12/2001. After trialall the three persons who were charged with the above said offenceswere acquitted by judgment dated 17.07.2003. Thereafter, the 3rdrespondent herein issued a lawyer's notice on 04.06.2004 claimingRs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the false complaint and maliciousprosecution. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein gave a complaintin writing to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, allegedthat he was a member of Scheduled Caste, whereas the petitionerherein was a caste Hindu; that since he was not amenable to thedemand made by the petitioner herein for making payment of Rs.1,000/-per month as regular illegal gratification, the petitioner hereinfabricated four complaints in the names of members of his communityagainst the 3rd respondent herein; that the petitioner conspired withthe then Inspector of Police, Rasipuram to foist a case against thepetitioner in Crime No.226/1999; that as already arranged between thepetitioner and the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was arrestedand remanded and had to go through the ordeal of facing the trial and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that all these harassments were made only because the 3rd respondentherein happened to be a member of Scheduled Caste whereas thepetitioner happened to be a caste Hindu. The said complaint wastransmitted to Aiyilpatti Police Station by the Deputy Superintendentof Police whereupon Crime No.193/2004 came to be registered againstthe petitioner herein and three other persons for the offencespunishable under Section 469, 471, 211, 182, 167 R/w 109 IPC andoffences under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(1)(1X) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal has been shownto be the investigating officer in the FIR. The case was registeredon 27.07.2004 and the FIR was received by the Judicial Magistrate on29.07.2004. Immediately thereafter, the present petition was filedon 30.07.2004.4. The petitioner in his petition has contended that he had notgiven complaint against any particular individual in connection withthe alleged extortion of money from the traders and agriculturists;that the complaint was given by him against unknown persons, that toobased on written complaints of the agriculturists, traders etc.,based on which Crime No.226/1999 was actually registered againstunknown persons; that only after investigation, the involvement ofthe petitioner and other two persons came to light pursuant to whichthey were arrested and prosecuted; that they did not get honourableacquittal but were acquitted giving benefit of doubt; that there wasno motive or ill-feeling against the 3rd respondent herein inpreferring the complaint and that the present complaint against himwas nothing but an attempted revenge for the bonafide prosecution ofthe 3rd respondent and others in the former case, namely CrimeNo.226/1999 (C.C.No.12/2001). It is the further contention of thepetitioner, as found in the petition averments, that the contents ofthe complaint do not make out a prima-facie case against thepetitioner for offences punishable under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. Based on the said contentions, the petitionerherein has prayed for an order quashing the FIR registered againsthim and three other persons in Crime No.193/2004 on the file ofAiyilpatti Police Station.5. Contending that a case has been registered against thepetitioner herein and others for offences punishable under Sections 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on the complaint of the 3rdrespondent herein; that the said complaint had been preferred inorder to take vengeance on the petitioner herein for the prosecutionof the 3rd respondent herein and others for offences under Section 419and 384 I.P.C. in Crime No.226/1999 on the file of Ayilpatti PoliceStation (C.C.No.12/2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,Rasipuram); that the complaint had been preferred falsely and that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the allegations found in the complaint were not enough to make out aprima-facie case against the petitioner herein for the allegedoffences, the petitioner has sought for an order quashing the abovesaid FIR. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, advancing argumentson behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the very fact that thepetitioner on receipt of the complaints from the agriculturists,traders etc., gave complaint to the Inspector of Police, Rasipuraminforming him that some unknown miscreants posing themselves to bemembers of "flying squad" of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committee,had indulged in extracting money from the agriculturists and traderswhile they were transporting agricultural produce to the nearbymarketing centres; that the case itself was registered againstunknown persons; that only on investigation the involvement of the 3rdrespondent and others were found out pursuant to which they werearrested and prosecuted, would show that there was no malice on thepart of the petitioner in lodging the complaint in the former caseagainst the 3rd respondent and others and that quashing the FIR inCrime No.193/2004 registered against the petitioner herein aloneshall meet the ends of justice preventing miscarriage of justice.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that theoffences punishable under Section 3(i)(viii) and 3(i)(ix) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 were not attracted by the contents of the complaint and hencefor that reason also, the FIR must be quashed. 7. The arguments advanced in reply to the said contentions havealso been heard and this court paid its anxious consideration to thesame. The materials available on records were also perused.8. Upon such a consideration and after perusing the records,this court comes to the conclusion that the present petition forquashing the FIR cannot be allowed. The inherent powers of the HighCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used, that toowith circumspection, to prevent abuse of process of court ormiscarriage of justice. Normally, the court shall not be inclined toquash the First Information Report on the ground that false andincorrect allegations are made out of ill-will and malice. This isbecause, complaint is the first information to the police setting thecriminal law in motion and the correctness or otherwise of theallegations made therein has to be found out by the investigatingagency during investigation. The investigation may result in thefiling of a charge-sheet based on which the accused may be prosecutedor in the submission of a referred charge sheet when it is found thatthe allegations are not correct. Therefore, when the investigationis in the nascent stage and the same is yet to be completed, noopinion can be expressed by the court while dealing with a petitionunder Section 482 regarding the correctness or otherwise of theallegations made in the complaint. The only ground on which the FIR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ can be quashed is when no cognizable case is made out even if theallegations found in the complaint (FIR) are to be taken as true.While dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seekingquashment of the FIR, the court should not embark upon a rowingenquiry as to whether the allegations could be true or not or whetherthe allegations made are malafide. No evaluation of the allegationsor the evidence collected by the investigating agency should be madeby the High Court while dealing with the petition under Section 482to quash either the FIR or the charge-sheet. Upon carefullyconsidering the records, this court comes to the conclusion that thepetitioner has not made out a case that the allegations made in thecomplaint are not enough to make out a prima-facie case for anoffence punishable under any one of the provisions of the IndianPenal Code cited in the First Information Report. Even the penalprovisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 cited in the FIR, namely Sections 3(i)(viii)and 3(i)(ix) of the said Act are clearly attracted by the avermentsmade in the complaint. 9. Though the petitioner might have lodged a complaint with theInspector of Police, Rasipuram stating that he received complaintabout the extraction of money by unknown persons from theagriculturists and traders posing themselves to be members of "flyingsquad" of Salem Agricultural Marketing Committee and in fact CrimeNo.226/1999 was registered against unknown persons, there are clearaverments to the effect that with a view to maliciously prosecute the3rd respondent herein, a member of the Scheduled Caste, the petitionerhad not only fabricated complaints but also made prior arrangementswith the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram to foist the case against the3rd respondent herein. Clear averments have been made that priorarrangements had been made to arrest the 3rd respondent and prosecutehim and that the same would be revealed by the fact that on the verynext day of registering the case, the Inspector of Police chose tosend a written communication to the petitioner herein informing himthat the 3rd respondent and others were found to be the personsinvolved in the act of extortion and that they had been arrested. FIRin Crime No.226/1999 was registered on 19.04.1999 at 11.00 AM. Thecomplaint was said to be signed on 09.03.1999 but the same was saidto be received on 19.04.1999. On 20.04.1999 itself, the Inspector ofPolice, Rasipuram, had sent a letter to the petitioner hereininforming him that on 19.04.1999 itself at about 1.00 PM driver ofthe Ambassador car bearing registration number MSR 1180 was arrestedthrough whom the involvement of the 3rd respondent was ascertained andthat at about 2.30 PM on the same day the 3rd respondent was arrested.10. In the FIR registered in Crime No.226/1999, the followingparticulars are also found. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "milahsk; bjhpahj egh;fs; thfd Ma;t[ bra;J tprhuiz bjhlh;ghf ghh;itj';fs; bjhiyngrp jfty; ehs; 19/4/99 ghh;itapy; fz;Ls;s bjhiyngrpapd;K:yk; jh';fs; ,t;tpw;gidf;FG brayhsh; mth;fsplk; gpw;gfy; 2 kzpastpy;nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;nfw;g jh';fs; nfl;Ls;s cz;ik efy; g[fhh;kDf;fis ,t;tpw;gidf;FG nkw;ghh;itahsh; jpU/vk;/Mh; nrhKtrk;bfhLj;jDg;gpa[s;nsd;/"The above said recital found in the said FIR gives a prima-facieimpression that there should have been concoction before registeringFIR as the said particulars are found incorporated in the FIR itself.It shows the Inspector of Police contacted the petitioner over phoneand asked him to send the true copies of the complaints of theagriculturists and traders and only thereafter, the copies of thesaid complaint were sent through one Mr.M.R.Somu. Hence the saidcomplaints which formed part of the FIR would have reached the handsof Inspector of Police, Rasipuram only after 2.00 PM on 19.04.1999.The FIR itself is said to be drafted at 11.00 AM on the said date.It is also a fact that all the persons examined in C.C.No.12/2001denied their sending complaints to the petitioner. The said case, inwhich the 3rd respondent was one of the accused, admittedly ended inacquittal. Of course the court which tried the case ultimatelyacquitted him and others stating that they were entitled to thebenefit of doubt. But a reading of the judgment will reveal thatclear finding had been recorded that the prosecution had failed toprove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances,alleging fabrication of documents in the names of agriculturists andtraders and maliciously prosecuting the 3rd respondent, a member ofthe Scheduled Caste and contending that it was done because hehappened to be a member of Scheduled Caste and refused to concede theillegal demands made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent haspreferred the complaint against the petitioner herein and otherpersons. The allegations made in the complaint that there wasconnivance between the petitioner and the Inspector of Police infoisting the case against the 3rd respondent cannot be dismissed aswithout any basis. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with such asituation in "State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others"reported in "1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335" and enumerated thefollowing circumstances under which alone the First InformationReport could be quashed."102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of thevarious relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIVand of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in aseries of decisions relating to the exercise of theextraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherentpowers under Section 482 of the Code which we haveextracted and reproduced above, we give the following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ categories of cases by way of illustration wherein suchpower could be exercised either to prevent abuse of theprocess of any court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to lay down andprecise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised andinflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give anexhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershould be exercised.(1)Where the allegations made in the first informationreport or the complaint, even if they are taken at theirface value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case againstthe accused.(2)Where the allegations in the first information reportand other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do notdisclose a cognizable offence, justifying aninvestigation by police officers under Section 156(1) ofthe Code except under an order of a Magistrate within thepurview of Section 155(2) of the Code.(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of thesame do not disclose the commission of any offence andmake out a case against the accused.(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizableoffence, no investigation is permitted by a policeofficer without any order of a Magistrate as contemplatedunder Section 155(2) of the Code.(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint areso absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of whichno prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion thatthere is sufficient ground for proceeding against theaccused.(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (underwhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to theinstitution and continuance of the proceedings and/orwhere there is a specific provision in the Code or theconcerned Act, providing efficacious redress for thegrievance of the aggrieved party.(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmalafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciouslyinstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the accused and with a view to spite him due toprivate and personal grudge.12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made the followingobservations in the very same judgment in paragraph 103:-"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect thatthe power of quashing a criminal proceeding should beexercised very sparingly and with circumspection and thattoo in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not bejustified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliabilityor genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in theFIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherentpowers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the courtto act according to its whim or caprice."13. Applying the above said principles to the facts of the caseon hand, this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner hasnot brought the case within any one of the above said seven grounds.Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion thatthe contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR inCrime No.193/2004 deserves to be quashed is legally unsustainable andthe arguments advanced in support of his contention has got to bediscountenanced. There is no merit in the petition and the samedeserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarasrTo :1)The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Rasipuram2)The Inspector of Police,Ayilpatti Police Station,Ayilpatti,Rasipuram (Taluk)Namakkal District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras+1 cc To Mr.S.T.S.Murthy,, Advocate, SR.29223 Order inCrl.O.P.No.28862 of 2004,Crl.M.P.No.8954 of 2004 andCrl.M.P.No.841 of 2006la [co]gkg/27.6