AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maheswaran, J.—Crl. M.P. No. 12058 of 1986 is a petition filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 145 of 1986 on
the file of Eranial Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crl. M.P. 12063/86 is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 293
of 1986 on the file of Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
The complaint in Crime No. 145 of 1986 was given by one Dr. Charles, Director of the International Cancer Centre, Neyyoor in Kanyakumari
District. The allegation in the complaint is that on 9th June, 1986 at about 10 a.m., the petitioners and thirty others entered the Cancer Centre,
abused the persons in the Centre in vulgar language and obstructed the day to day work of the hospital.
The petitioner as state that the said complaint was given by Dr. Charles who was aggrieved at certain proceedings in Civil Court taken by the
Diocese of the Church of South India, Kanyakumari which has obtained an order of injunction restraining Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Charles from
entering into the premises of the International Cancer Centre, Neyyoor. The averments in the petition are to the effect that Dr. Charles who was
the Director of the International Cancer Centre at Neyyoor, along with one Dr. Jenkins of the London Committee which was set up in London by
the Medical Board of the Kanyakumari Diocese for raising funds in Europian countries for development of the Cancer Centre at Neyyoor, was
attempting to take away the administration of the Cancer Centre from the Diocese of the Church of South India, Kanyakumari. It was also alleged
that Dr. Charles has misappropriated large funds. The petitioners'' case is that the complaint given by Dr. Charles is false and therefore the criminal
proceedings in Crime No. 145 of 1986 may be. quashed.
Criminal M.P. No. 12063 of 1986 is by the petitioners therein to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. in Crime No. 293 of 1986 on the file of
Eraniel Police Station. The Complaint in that case was given by Dr. (Mrs.) Charles, who is also an Acting Director of the international Cancer
Centre at Neyyoor. She alleges that on 28th October, 1986 at about 3 p.m. when she was working in the office, Dr. Vijayan, the first petitioner in
Crl. M.P, No. 12063 of 1986 (along with three other petitioners) came into the International Cancer Centre armed with deadly weapons and
broke open the locks of almyrah and office and tampered with the records and files and prevented her from carrying out her duties. She also states
that the occurrence was witnessed by Kumaresan, watchman, and by Rengile, Natarajan and also by nurses, Mercy and Metilda. The petitioners
in their petitions to quash the proceedings make the same allegations as they made against her husband in Criminal MP. No. 12058 of 1986 and
make reference to the civil suit filed by Charles and State that Dr. (Mrs.) Charles has given the complaint to coerce them to withdraw the suit filed
against her husband. Dr. Charles, and that the complaint was given on the very next day when the ad hoc Committee wanted to suspend her and
that therefore the complaint given by Dr. (Mrs.) Vimala Charles, wife of Dr. Charles, which is only to coerce the petitioners to withdraw the suit
filed against Dr. Charles, has to be quashed.
The petitioners in Criminal M.P. No. 12058 of 1986 are six in number while in Crl. M.P. 12063 of 1986 they are four. One Ayyadurai,
Sathiyadoss and Dr. Vijayan figure as petitioners in both the petitions. In addition to these three persons, Johnson, Arumai, and Gnanasigamony
are three other petitioners in Crl.M.P. No. 12058 of 1986 while Kuttykan is one of the petitioners in Crl.M.P. 12063 of 1986 along with Dr.
Vijayan, Ayyadurai and Sathiyadoss.
Both the petitions show that the petitioners and Dr. Charles and Dr. (Mrs.) Charles are connected with the administration of the International
Cancer Centre. Dr. Charles was the Director of the International Cancer Centre while Dr. (Mrs.) Charles was the Acting Director of the said
Centre. Both Dr. Charles and Mrs. Charles allege that the petitioners in the respective petitions have committed rioting and obstructed the smooth
functioning of the institute, but on different dates. The instance in Crime No. 145 of 1986 is alleged to have taken place on 9.6.1986 at about
10:00 a.m. The petitioners have entered the Centre and are alleged to have used abusive words against the inmates of the Centre and have
obstructed functioning of the Hospital which has caused great inconvenience to the patients. The instance in respect of which Crime No. 293 of
1986 is registered, is said to have taken place on 28.10.1986 around 3:00 p.m. when the petitioners in the said petition, Crl.M.P.12063 of 1986
entered the Cancer Centre armed with deadly weapons, trespassed and broke open the lock of almirah and office and tampered with the records
and prevented them from carrying out their duties. These are two different instances. In both the complaints, the allegations disclose a prima facie
case against the petitioners. While the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No. 12058 of 1986 say that the complaint by Dr. Charles is false, the petitioners in
Criminal M.P. No. 12063 of 1986 do not even say that the complaint given by Dr. (Mrs.) Charles is false. But, they say it was given in order to
coerce the petitioners to withdraw the suit filed by them. No doubt, some civil proceedings are pending between the parties. But during the
pendency of the civil proceedings, if one party acts in such manner which amounts to a criminal offence, a criminal complaint has to be filed. The
averments in the complaint prima facie show that the petitioners have committed cognizable offences. It should further be noted that the petitioners
want to quash the F.I.R. even before the police have completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet. A first information report which prima
facie discloses a cognizable offence cannot be quashed. In Hazari Lal Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Prasad and Another, etc., , the Supreme Court while
dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482, Crl.P.C. (Old S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure) referred to the case
in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, and also to State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Basak, and observed--
In exercising jurisdiction under S. 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if
there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence
is ''reliable or not'' Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code the High Court does not ''interfere with such investigation because it would then be impeding investigation and
jurisdictions of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, the Supreme Court also pointed out that a first information report
which does not allege or disclose that the essential, requirements of the penal provision or prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or
constitute the starting point of lawful investigation and an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R.
In both the petitions, as I pointed out, the complaints prima facie disclose cognizable offences. Offences concerned in Crime No. 145 of 1986
are cognizable. All the offences, except the offences under S. 506 , (Part II) and 427, I.P.C. concerned in Crime No. 145 of 1986 are cognizable
offences. When the complaints disclose prima facie cognizable offences, this Court, will not exercise its jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R. more particularly before the police have started investigation. If authority is needed for that proposition, it is
to be found in Kurukshetra University and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, For the reasons stated above these petitions are dismissed.