The High Court rejected petitions seeking quashing of FIR alleging caste-based offences and trespass. It held FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation and found no grounds to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Criminal Petitions were dismissed and investigating officer directed to follow procedure under Section 41A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4673 and 4674 of 2021 COMMON ORDER:-
These Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.600 of 2021 of Ongole Taluka Police Station, Prakasham District, registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 506 r/w 149 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4673 of 2021 are A- 15, A-16 and A-17 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4674 of 2021 is A-8 in the above crime. Therefore, these two petitions are disposed of by a common order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
On a report lodged by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant alleging that the petitioners herein along with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and trespassed into his property and threatened him with dire consequences and abused him the name of his caste and insulted him, the aforesaid F.I.R was registered against the petitioners. The said crime is now under investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the names of A-15, A-16 and A-17 are not at all mentioned in the F.I.R
2
and as such the launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. He would submit that even though the name of A-8 is mentioned in the F.I.R, as there is inordinate delay of about two months in lodging the F.I.R that the present F.I.R is liable to be quashed. He would also submit that there is a dispute relating to the land and on account of the said land dispute that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above crime and based on the aforesaid ground, he would pray for quash of the F.I.R registered against the petitioners.
As regards the delay in lodging the F.I.R is concerned, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh1 . A perusal of the said judgment shows that there was a delay of five years in setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, in the said peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that it is fatal to the case of the prosecution and that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken on the basis of the said report, which was lodged with inordinate delay. The facts of the said case are very much distinguishable and the ratio in the judgment cannot be applied to the present facts of the case.
A perusal of the contents of the F.I.R, as rightly pointed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor clearly reveals that the names of A-15, A-16 and A-17, who are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4673 of 2021, are clearly mentioned in the F.I.R.
1 (2016) 9 SCC 1
3
Therefore, it cannot be said as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their names are not mentioned in the F.I.R. The name of A-8, who is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4674 of 2021, is also found in the F.I.R. The contents of the F.I.R prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, the matter requires investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations set out in the F.I.R. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited above itself it is held that whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect materials for proving the offence. Further, Apex Court also held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C shall be exercised by the High Court judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily.
Therefore, as noticed supra, in the present case, the contents of the F.I.R prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence, which requires investigation, this Court absolutely does not find any valid legal ground warranting its interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C in exercise of its inherent powers either to quash the F.I.R or to interdict the investigation. Therefore, both the Criminal Petitions lack merit.
In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
4
However, as the above offences registered against the petitioners are all punishable with less than seven (07) years period of imprisonment, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.
______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 18.08.2021 AKN
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4673 and 4674 of 2021
Date: 18-08-2021
AKN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence warrants quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether inordinate delay or non-mention of names in FIR prevents investigation.
Whether petitioner remedies succeed on facts of land dispute and filing delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶9
Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh
4 provisions across 3 enactments
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-8
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
