This judgment dismisses a petition to quash an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that the prior closure of a complaint was conditional upon the petitioner's undertaking to pay, which was breached. Accordingly, the subsequent FIR was treated as a valid reinvestigation.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.28258 of 2017 and CRL.M.P.No.16049 of 2017
V.Balakrishnan
...Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of police, District Crime Branch, kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. (Crime No.43 of 2017)
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.43 of 2917 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District and quash the same.
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate for R.1
Mr.L.Rajasekar for R2
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.43 of 2017, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
in collusion with Azerra Steela, swindled the company amount to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.43 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that there cannot be two First Information Reports on the same set of facts, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent contended that final report was filed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and the same has been closed only on the undertaking given by the petitioner. But, the petitioner had failed to pay the amount. Hence the present FIR.
8. I have perused the materials available on record.
9. It appears that before the trial Court, defacto complainant had made an endorsement to the effect that he has no objection in closing the complaint. As per the undertaking, he has not paid the money. Therefore the present FIR has been filed once again on the same set of offence.
10. It is relevant to note that earlier complaint was closed only on the undertaking given by the petitioner. Now, he
has taken advantage of the same and filed this application to quash the FIR. It is to be noted that the very conduct of the petitioner indicate that he has given such an undertaking only to avoid criminal prosecution.
11. Though it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said undertaking is given under coercion that cannot be gone into at this stage. But the fact remains that earlier closure report indicate that the same has been closed only on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner. Mere closure of the earlier FIR cannot be a ground to stop the reinvestigation of the allegation, which is serious in nature. In such a view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
shk/mvs.
To
+1cc to Mr.L.Rajasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.60241
CRL.O.P.No.28258 of 2017
RSV[co]
NSK 10/12/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a First Information Report (FIR) filed on the same facts as a previously closed complaint, closed only on the petitioner's failure to honor an undertaking, should be quashed under Section 482
Whether the mere closure of a prior investigation based on a conditional undertaking prevents reinvestigation or quashing of a subsequent FIR arising from the same allegations.
Whether the petitioner's conduct in benefiting from the closure of the earlier FIR while avoiding the payment of the undertaking amount justifies dismissing the plea to quash.
V.Balakrishnan
State rep. by The Inspector of police, District Crime Branch, kancheepuram
P.Sivakumar
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
