The High Court of Madras considered a petition to quash an FIR registered for theft. The court held that the allegations were sufficient to proceed with investigation and dismissed the petition, directing police to expedite the inquiry.
Criminal Original Petition dismissed; investigation directed to be expedited.
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 : 02.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRL.O.P.NO.27197 OF 2016 AND CRL.M.P.NO.13771 OF 2016
1.P.R.Vairamani
2.Umamaheswari
4.Priya
5.Arun
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,4 to 6
Vs.
Chennai – 600 087.
... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.P.R.Janaki Raman
...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.86 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumara Devan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Murthi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent No.2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.86 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
complainant. The legal position with regard to quashing of FIR is very well settled in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR
do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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.
Quashing of FIR can be done only if no case is made out, then only FIR can be quashed. In the case before hand, there are specific allegations made against the accused that they connived and conspired together and committed theft of articles. Only if proper investigation is conducted, the truth or falsity of the allegations made in the FIR will come to light. As of
now, the allegations made in the FIR are sufficient to proceed with further investigation in this case.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sli
To
+1cc to Mr.S.Kumara Devan, Advocate, S.R.No.14010
Crl.O.P.No.27197 of 2016
MT(CO)
PM/06/04/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR registered under Section 380 IPC for theft should be allowed.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence justifying further investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal and othersExplained¶33
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan lal and others 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.R.Vairamani
Umamaheswari
Padmavathy
Priya
Arun
State rep.by Inspector of Police
G.Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
