AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Bhavadasan, J.—This is a petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to have Annexure A1, FIR quashed. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 437/CR/OCW-II/EKM for having committed offences punishable u/s 468 and 469 of IPC.
The allegations against the petitioner are available from Annexure A1, which contains the First Information Statement also. At the time of admission of this petition, it is seen that this Court passed an interim order staying all further proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate before which the FIR was filed. It appears that on a subsequent occasion, a statement seems to have been filed before this Court pointing out that the investigation was handed over to CBI and on that basis the interim order was not extended. That was challenged by the petitioner before the Apex Court who disposed of Crl. Appeal No. 921 of 2013 by order dated 12.07.2013.
Before the Apex Court, it appears that the CBI represented that it was not interested in investigating into the matter as it did not involve any serious issue at all.
The Apex Court disposed of the appeal by observing that this Court may make every endeavour to dispose of the petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law and till such time, the interim order granted by the Apex Court shall continue to be in force.
On the basis of the allegations in the First Information Statement, which is seen appended to the FIR, it could not be said that no cognizable offence is made out.
The petitioner would say that no offence is made out and even during preliminary investigation, no offence as against him has been detected.
It is trite that an FIR can be quashed only if the complaint, based on which the FIR is lodged, does not disclose any cognizable offence. If that criterion is to be applied, it could not be said that, in the case on hand, no cognizable offence as such is made out on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. Whether the allegations are true or not is not a matter to be gone into at this point of time. That is a matter for investigation. It is well settled that the province of investigation belongs exclusively to the Police and the Court cannot interfere with the investigation except under certain exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances is made out in the case on hand.
It was then pointed out that the petition was filed without impleading the de facto complainant and that practice should be deprecated. It was also pointed out that the persons who are totally unconnected with the issue and who are witnesses and a counsel who had appeared in the case have been sought to be impleaded as respondents 5 to 7. Respondents 5 and 6 are the witnesses and respondent 7 is the learned counsel. They have been dragged to the court and they have spent money and time in order to defend themselves. It is pointed out by the counsel appearing for those persons, who are sought to be arrayed as respondents 5 to 7, that such practice should be strongly deprecated and those persons should be awarded heavy compensatory cause.
The learned counsel appearing for the CBI pointed out that they are not interested in investigating into the case.
However, the learned Advocate General Sri. K.P. Dandapani pointed out that it is not for CBI, in these proceedings, to point out that they are not interested in investigating the matter. The State Government rightly or wrongly passed an order handing over the investigation to the CBI and the CBI have to resort to appropriate proceedings if they are not willing to investigate into the matter.
That issue does not arise for consideration in this petition at all. There seems to be considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents who were sought to be impleaded and also the learned Advocate General. When the State Government has passed an order which is produced as Annexure C it may not be proper for this Court at this point of time to consider whether the CBI is interested in investigating into the matter.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 that the practice of impleading witnesses and counsel in the case has necessarily to be deprecated and also to be condemned. But this Court has not allowed the impleading application and therefore the question of awarding compensatory cause may not arise for consideration at this point of time.
Equally, unacceptable is the conduct of the petitioner in not impleading the de facto complainant in the proceedings especially when the FIR, lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by him, is sought to be quashed. This Court had occasion to consider this aspect on earlier occasions and this Court had strongly deprecated such practice. In spite of the said observations of this Court, practice still continues. One can only say it is quiet unfortunate and it is to be avoided.
Whatever that be, since the investigation has started and since this Court has found that on the basis of the allegations in the FIS, cognizable offence is made out, quashing of the FIR does not arise for consideration. If at all the petitioner has any grievance after the final report is filed, there are remedies available to him. If he has got a case that the final report when filed does not involve any offence, he may take appropriate steps at that point of time.
With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
ORDER
Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the learned senior counsel engaged is unable to come to the court today and the matter may kindly be adjourned.
This was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who pointed out the urgency in the matter. The learned Director General of Prosecution pointed out that as directed by this Court, the CD is available for perusal of this Court.
In the light of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready to argue the matter for whatever reason it may be, even though it was ordered that no further adjournment will be granted, this court is constrained to adjourn the case for hearing.
Post on 02.01.2014 peremptorily for hearing. The CD needs to be produced only on that day.