This judgment quashed an FIR registered for shouting obscene songs, assault, and obstructing a public servant. The court held that the petitioners acted in bona fide manner due to a misunderstanding regarding electricity payment timing, as confirmed by the complainant.
The impugned FIR in Crime No.164 of 2021 is quashed.
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.
Crl O.P.(MD)No.8384 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl O.P.(MD)No. 8384 of 2021
1.K.Naganatha Sethupathy 2.B.Rajadurai
... Petitioners 1 & 2/
Accused 1 to 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, B2 Bazaar Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.164 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant 2.Prasanth ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of FIR in Crime No.164 of 2021 dated 09.04.2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesan for Right Law Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal Side)for R1
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime.No.164 of 2021 registered on the file of the B2 Bazaar Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
1/2
Crl O.P.(MD)No.8384 of 2021
not compoundable. It is seen that the first petitioner Thiru.K.Naganatha Sethupathi was called upon to execute security bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C earlier. Though the petitioners' counsel informs the Court that the consumption charges were paid by the petitioners before a private online agent for remittance, it appears that TANGEDCO was in receipt of the payment only next day at 10.00 am. In the meanwhile, the second respondent had come for effecting disconnection. On account of this misunderstanding, the occurrence had taken place. I am satisfied that the petitioners had acted in a bonafide manner and they had no real intention to prevent a public servant from discharging his official duties. In fact, liquidation of liability by the petitioners is also confirmed by the second respondent. In view of the stand taken by the second respondent, the impugned FIR is quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
mga/csm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
B2 Bazaar Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.R.Venkatesan, Advocate for RIGHT LAW ASSOCIATES,(SR37174[F] dated 03/12/2021)
Crl O.P.(MD)No.8384 of 2021 02.12.2021
VR(CO)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SB(17.12.2021) 2P 4C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under Sections 294(b), 323, and 353 IPC should be quashed given the bona fide nature of the petitioners' actions.
Whether the delay in payment receipt by TANGEDCO could be considered a misunderstanding rather than an attempt to obstruct public duty.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Naganatha Sethupathy
B.Rajadurai
The State represented by The Inspector of Police
Prasanth
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
