Disposed

N.Chandra Balu, M/a 60 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC27 Jul 2018CRL OP/12372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR under Cr.P.C. 482. Although the petitioner was exonerated in a departmental enquiry, the court directed the police to complete the investigation within six months because the initial trial court had found prima facie guilt.

What did the court decide?

petition closed; respondent directed to complete investigation within six months and file charge sheet or closure report.

N.Chandra Balu, M/a 60 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 27.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12372 of 2017

¶6

N.Chandra Balu ... Petitioner/Accused No.8 Vs.

¶7

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Vellore, Vellore District ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police to complete the investigation and file final report by considering the order passed by the District Registrar (Administation) Arakkonam by his proceedings No.4592/2A1/2014 dated 01.03.2018 in Crime No.27/2014 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

On the complaint of one Prakash, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2014 on 31.07.2014 under Sections 420, 406, 353 and 506(i) r/w 109 IPC against seven accused . In the FIR, the name of the petitioner does not figure. The facts of the case has been completely gone into by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4706 of 2015 and Crl.O.P.No.32983 of 2014 vide order dated 24.06.2015 and therefore, it may not be necessary to repeat the same. Suffice to say that Chandra Balu, the petitioner herein had filed Crl.O.P.No.4706 of 2015 for quashing the FIR in Crime No.27 of 2014 and that this Court has dismissed the same by giving the following findings in Paragraph.8:-

¶13

“This Court carefully considered the submissions and found that the petitioners are not as innocent as what they claim. It is seen that the document has been registered at eight in the night and not during office hours. Koteswaran has stated that he is a Document Writer and that he is the conduit between the parties coming for registration and the Sub Registrar

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

[petitioner herein]. Accordingly, the impugned document was registered by the petitioner herein at the instance of the co-accused. Even though they knew full well that the property covered under the document was mortgaged with Oriental Bank of Commerce, the Sub Registrar and his Assistant have registered the document. Since investigation is at a very nascent stage, the FIR in this case cannot be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajanlal Vs. State of Haryana, [AIR 1992 SC 604] has laid down the parameters for quashing the FIR and the facts of this case does not pass muster the law laid down therein.

¶16

In the result, these petitions are devoid of merits and the same stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶17

3 Now, Mr.E.Kannadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.07.2018 and on account of pendency of this FIR, he has not been permitted to retire. He further submitted that in the domestic enquiry that was conducted by the department, he has been honourably exonerated by order dated 01.03.2018. In fact, he is brought to the notice of this Court the following finding in the Enquiry Officer's report:

¶18

“thyh$h rhu;gjpthsuhy; 2371-2014 MtzkhdJ ,ut[ neuj;jpy; fhyk;jhH;j;jp gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;gjw;F ntY}u; khtl;lf; Fw;wg;gpupt [ cjtp Ma;thsuhy; vt;tpj MjhuKk; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy tprhuiz mYtyupd; mwpf;ifapd; go kl;Lnk 14/03/2014 md;W gpw;gfy; 3/30 kzp tiu kl;Lnk 72 Mtz';fs; jhf;fy; bry;tjw;F mDkjpf;fg;gl;L nlhf;fd; tpy;iy tH';fg;gl;ljpd; mog;gilapy; tHf;fpyhd fpiua Mtzk; 2014 Mk; Mz;od; 2371Mf filrpahf 6/45 kzpf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vdt[k; ,jid fz;fhzpg;g[ nfkuht[k; cWjp bra;Js;sJ vdt[k;. nkYk; jdpaiu 6/50 kzpf;F gzpapypUe;J kw;bwhU mYtyf cjtpahsu; bghWg;ngw;wikf;F Rw;Wf;fhty; gjpntl;oy; RUf;bfhg;gk; cs;sJ vdt[k; bjuptpj;Js;shu;/ vdnt jdpau; tHf;fpyhd Mtzj;jpiz rl;lj;jpw;F g[wk;ghd fhy neuj;jpy; rhu;gjpthsu; gjpt[ bra;jikf;F cle;ijahf ,Ue;Js;shu; vd;w Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgzkhftpy;iy/

¶19

jdpau; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wrhl;L. tprhuiz mYtyu; Kd; jdpau; mspj;j tpsf;fk;. tprhuiz mYtyupd; mwpf;if. Mfpait bjhlu;g[ila gjpt [Uf;fSld; ftdkhfg; guprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ mt;thwhd guprPyidf;Fg;gpd; tprhuiz mYtyupd; mwpf;if Vw;fg;gl;L. ghu;it 3,y; fhQk; Fwpg;ghizapd; Kyk; jdpau; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;oid iftplyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

4 The allegation against the petitioner is that he had registered the impugned document after office hours in order to help the other accused. However, the findings of the departmental proceedings shows that the impugned document was registered before 6.45 p.m. in the office.

¶22

Of course, the findings in the departmental proceedings is not binding on the Investigation Officer. However, the Investigating Officer cannot close his eyes to the CCTV recordings and other materials to show that the petitioner had assisted the Sub Registrar in registering the document during office hours.

¶23

5 Hence, bearing these aspects in mind, the respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2014 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and either file a charge sheet or closure report as the case may be.

¶24

With the above direction, this petition is closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1 The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
2 The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.E. Kannadasan , Advocate sr 51071.
Crl.O.P.No.12372 of 2018

¶25

SP(02/08/2018)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Chandra Balu, M/a 60 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Chandra Balu, M/a 60 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.P.Yesudoss Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

I.P.Yesudoss, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

I.P.Yesudoss, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thulasimani, Aged 29 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

V.Ganesh, Aged 53 Years, Vs State by

Kala, F/a 58 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police