BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20/07/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl. O.P. No.3188 of 2005 1.E.Udhaya 2.E.Visalakshi .. Petitioners Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police West Police Station Thanjavur. .. Respondent This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the charge sheet filed by him in CC.No.46 of 2005 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Singaravelan ^For Respondent ... Mr.Ravibhaskar Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) :ORDER
The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.46/2005 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. The case has been taken on file by the
respondent police for investigation on the strength of the complaint given by
the Bench Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, in which, it has been
alleged that the petitioners, on 16.08.2004, alleged to have threatened the
Bench Clerk, used filthy language and criminally intimidated him. The respondent
police, on conclusion of the investigation, filed a final report and the same
has been taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur.
2. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submit that the first petitioner
is a practising advocate. Second petitioner is her mother. A maintenance case
filed by the second petitioner against her husband was pending before the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tanjavur. An order of maintenance was passed on
09.08.2004. For the enforcement of that order, a registered notice has been
issued by the second petitioner. The first petitioner has gone to the Court to
collect the acknowledgement from the Bench Clerk. At that time, the Bench Clerk
alleged to have quarrelled with the petitioners and threatened them. The fist
petitioner has lodged a complaint before the learned Principal District Judge
against the Bench Clerk, and after enquiry, the Bench Clerk was transferred.
In the meantime, a complaint has been given to the respondent Police against the
Bench Clerk and the same has been treated as petition enquiry. As the Bench
Clerk has been transferred, the issue has been compromised and the complaint was
withdrawn on the same day.
3.Subsequently, on 23.09.2004, the present complaint has been given by the
very same Bench Clerk to the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, who
forwarded the same to the respondent police. On receipt of such complaint, a
case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 353, 294,
506(ii) IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, a final report has been filed
and the same has been taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Thanjavur.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the incident has
taken place on 16.08.2004. The complaint has been initially given only by the
first petitioner to the learned Principal District Judge and on account of that
the defacto complainant, namely the Bench clerk of Judicial Magistrate II,
Thanjavur, has been transferred. As the issue has been compromised, even the
complaint given before the respondent police has been withdrawn. If really the
defacto complainant was aggrieved, a complaint would have been given to the
respondent police on the same day itself, but the present complaint has been
given on 23.09.2004, after 45 days. In the normal course, such a complaint
should have been given to the Police directly. The present complaint has been
submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Thanjavur, and the same has
been forwarded to the respondent police. The way in which the complaint
generated belatedly shows that the same has been done only for the purpose of
wrecking vengeance against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the
maintenance case, which was pending in that Court has been transferred on the
request of the petitioners. It is further contended that on the face of the
allegation mentioned in the First Information Report as well as the final
report, it appears that the allegation are improbable, unbelivable and if such
serious occurrence had taken place, the defacto complainant would have given the
complaint on that day itself. Looking at the background situation of the case,
it appears that the defacto complainant has initiated this present proceedings
with an ulterior motive against the petitioners.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also submits that the
allegation on the face of it is absurd and unbelievable.
7. I have perused the materials available on record including the First
Information Report and other materials culminating in the filing of the final
report. Though certain serious allegations are made, the allegations may have
to be appreciated in the background of the delay. The first petitioner has
previously given a complaint on the very same date itself to the learned
Principal District Judge and based on which the defacto complainant was
transferred. The first petitioner has given a complaint to the police and only
because of the compromise with the the defacto complainant, that was withdrawn.
If really the allegations of the defacto complainant are true, he would have
approached the respondent police on that day itself and all these situations
shows that there is no truth in the allegation made by the defacto complainant.
8.Admittedly, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the Bench
Clerk on 16.08.2004. Even in the present complaint, the date has been mentioned
only as 16.08.2004. If such a serious incident has happened inside the Court
premises and if really all those allegations are true, the Bench Clerk, who is
possessed with all knowledge and experience about the procedure of filing of the
case etc., ought to have approached the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II,
Thanjavur or the police on the same day itself. But, on the contrary, there are
positive materials to substantiate that only the petitioners are aggrieved
parties and that is the reason why they lodged the complaint before the learned
Principal District Judge. As there are prima facie materials in the allegations
given by the petitioners, the Bench Clerk has been transferred. It appears that
the learned Principal District Judge has found fault with the Bench Clerk and
that is the reason why a punishment has been given to the Bench Clerk by way of
transfer. Keeping in mind the punishment given on account of the complaint
given by the petitioners, it appears that the defacto complainant was brooding
all these days and ultimately came to a conclusion to wreck vengeance on
23.09.2004 by lodging a complaint against the petitioners. All these facts may
have to be assessed to see whether the allegations made in the complaint are
true or not. No doubt, this is a petition to quash the proceedings even before
the commencement of the trial. In a case reported in AIR 1992 SC 603 (State of
Haryana v.Bhajan Lal),The Honourable Subpreme Court Categorised the instances in
which a case could be quashed. It has been held that there are certain
circumstances, wherein this Court can exercise inherent power to quash the First
Information Report and other proceedings. The case on hand fits in with clause 5
and 7 of para 108 of the decision cited supra. One easily come to a conclusion
that the present allegation stated in the case is inherently improbable and the
allegations has been made with mala fide intention for the purpose of wrecking
vengeance on the petitioners. In AIR 1992 SC 603 (State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal)
it has been held as follows:-
“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.
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. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is
a fit case to quash the proceedings and accordingly the proceedings pending
against the petitioners in CC.No.46 of 2005 is quashed and the this petition is
allowed accordingly. No costs.
mpk
To
1. The Government Advocate,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police
West Police Station
Thanjavur.
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Thanjavur.