Veeramani and others vs The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri and others

Ratnavel Pandian, J.—The petition has been filed to quash the proceedings In Crime No. 1581/75 of Dharmapuri Police Station, now pending in D.C.B Crime No. 11/75 registered under Ss. 147, 448 and 380 I.P.C. The first Petitioner now under suspension, was the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri. The 7th Petitioner, who is employed as a Radio Supervisor attached to the District Development Office, Dharmapuri, is the brother of the second Petitioner, who is employed as a teacher in a School attached to the Morappur Panchayat Union Council. The third Petitioner is the uncle of the 7th Petitioner. Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are related to the 7th Petitioner, and they are all agriculturists. The 7th Petitioner, according to the petition, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Dharmapuri for a declaration that the alleged marriage between him and one Kanchana, daughter of Govindarajulu, recorded before the Marriage Registrar at Dharmapuri on 4th August 1975, is null and void, and for an injunction directing the said Kanchana not to claim the status of a wife of the 7th Petitioner, and for other reliefs. It is averred in the same petition that he was forcibly taken away by the members of Kanchana family to the Marriage Registrar''s office under threat and his signatures were obtained. It is the further case of the 7th Petitioner that the conduct of the said marriage was with an ulterior motive of snatching away the properties belonging to him by unlawful means. The 7th Petitioner was originally living in Gandhinagar, Dharmapuri; but, unable to bear the harassment of the said, Kanchana and her family members, he shifted his residence to Pidamaneri area in Dharmapuri town in the beginning of September 1975.

The plaint, according to him, was filed in Court on 8th September 1975, though it was made ready on 2nd September 1975 itself. the said Kanchana, with her parents and others forcibly entered the house occupied by the 7th Petitioner on 19th September 1975. He further states that Kanchana filed a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner in the above suit for taking an inventory of all the articles and certain physical features. The Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the house on 20th September 1970 and took an inventory of all the properties at about 8 a.m. The 7lh Petitioner, apprehending trouble and breach of the peace at the hands of Kanchana and her men, gave the complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri (first Petitioner herein) alleging that there was likelihood of danger to his life and that he might be beaten and harassed by them if he attempted to remove his articles from his house and requesting for police bandobust. Thereupon, the 7th Petitioner came back to his house and was removing his things with the assistance of Petitioners 2 to 6 in spite of the petitions and protests made by Kanchana, her parents and others By that time, the first Petitioner also came to the residence of the 7th Petitioner and warned the patties cot to create disturbance and breach of the peace. Subsequently, it was learnt by the 7th Petitioner that Kanchana had laid a complaint against all the Petitioners including the first Petitioner, before the Superintendent of police, Dharmapuri (first Respondent), on 20th September 1975, and on receipt of that, passed an order on 22nd September 1975, directing the Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri to register a case under Ss 147, 380 and 488, I.P.C. and transfer the case to the District Crime Branch for investigation. Thereupon it is seen from the endorsement on the petition that a case was registered in Crime No. 1581 of 1975 under the abovesaid section and the First Information Report was transferred to the D.C.B., Dharmapuri, for investigation. the 7th Petitioner would submit that the averments contained in the complaint filed by Kanchana; a copy of which is enclosed with this petition, do not prima facie contain any allegation regarding the commission of any of the offences for which the case is new registered. II is averred that the 7th Petitioner was entitled to remove his articles from his house and while doing so it is far-fetched to say that he was committing an offence. Petitioners 2 to 6 had been to his house only on his invitation and as such they cannot be said to have committed any one of the offences.

Coming to the case of the first Petitioner, the 7th Petitioner would submit that even if the allegations made against the first Petitioner are deemed to be true, he was only discharging his duty as a police officer on the complaint filed by him. Finally, he would say that the complaint given by Kanchana would disclose no offence, but, on the other hand, the action taken would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court intended to subject the Petitioners to unnecessary hardship and harassment.

So far as the petition now pending before me it concerned, I have to see whether the action taken by the first Respondent in passing en order to register a case on the averments contained in the petition of Kanchana, is to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 of the Crl.P.C..

There is no dispute that the 7th Petitioner bad presented a petition before the first Petitioner on 20th September 1975, requesting him to give him polite bandobust so that his life and property might not be pot to danger. Similarly, it is admitted that the first Petitioner had gone to the house of the 7th Petitioner at the time when the latter was removing his articles with the help of Petitioners 2 to 6 and the first Petitioner warned the parties, probably the party of Kanchana and her men, not to commit breach of the peace.

In order to satisfy myself whether the first Petitioner took action only in the normal course as an officer in the police station, I summoned the General Diary of the station and the pocket note book of the first Petitioner for the relevant date.

In the General diary there is an entry which I mark as Ex C-1, made at 10 a.m. on 20th September 1975 to the effect that Sambasivam (accused-7) had given a petition in the station, toe allegations in which disclosed a dispute of Civil nature, and that he was leaving the station in order to warn the counter Petitioners. In the pocket note book of the first Petitioner, there are two entries made at 10 a.m., and 11 a.m. for the date 20th September 1975, which I now mark as Exs. C-2 and C-3 on the reverse side of page 96 and on page 97. Ex. C-2 reveals that Sambasivam (accused-7), son of Kovanna Reddy, gave a petition of a civil nature, and be was proceeding to warn the counter Petitioners. Ex. C-3 made at 11 a.m. would indicate that he went to Pidamaneri near the Railway Gate and met the Petitioner and the counter-Petitioners in person and warned the parties not to create any rioting or disturbance. Thus, these two entries found in the General Diary and to the note book would clearly reveal that what all the first Petitioner did was in exercise of his duties as Sub Inspector of the said station in the normal course. I see much force in the contention of Mr. Rameswami that had the first Petitioner neglected or omitted to take any action on the petition presented by the 7th Petitioner, which every officer in charge of the police station is expected to do, he would have been definitely held liable for dereliction of duty.

Now, I shall examine the allegations made in the petition given by Kanchana to the Superintendent of Police, which provoked the first Respondent to order registration of the case. They are as follows:

A reading of these allegations would show that the 7th Petitioner and his men came to the house of the former and took away the utensils, his boxes, clothes and implements for repairing the radio and his other belongings. In other words, the properties that are alleged to have been taken away are admitted to be the properties of the 7th Petitioner himself. Coming to the allegation of the first Petitioner, it Is alleged that he asked Kanchana not to prevent them from taking the things and he had come there only under orders of the Superintendent of Police and if she persisted to do so, she would be arrested. I am not able to understand what is the offence that is committed by these Petitioners, even taking the entire averments found in the complaint to be true Can it be said that Petitioners 2 to 7 had committed a criminal trespass when the house in question was in the occupation of the Petitioner No. 7 on whose invitation the other Petitioners went there? Further, it can be safely concluded that by no stretch of imagination can be said that Petitioner No. 1 who is no other than the Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned police Station, has committed an offence of criminal trespass as contemplated u/s 448 I.P.C., when he has acted under the colour of his office. Similarly, it is very strange to note that case of an offence u/s 380 I.P.C., is ordered to be registered on the averments, which clearly and unambiguously show that Petitioner No. 7, with the assistance of the other Petitioners, removed only the belongings of Petitioner No. 7, which fact has been admitted even in the complaint made by Kanchana herself. When they have not committed any offence either u/s 448 or under S.380, there is absolutely no offence committed u/s 147 I.P.C. Thus, in my view, even if the allegations in the complaint given by Kanchana are taken to be true at their face value, they do not disclose any offence.

Mr. K. Ramaswami has brought to my notice the decision of the Kerala High Court in Chemnad Essential Oils and Other Allied Manufacturing Company v. Circle Inspector of Police, Puthur and Ors. 1974 M.L.J. Cri. 191 where, after discussing elaborately the scope of the powers that can be exercised by the High Court u/s 561-A, Crl. P.C. making reference to almost all the leading decisions, the learned Judge has summarised the position by observing that u/s 561 A of the allegations made in the first information statement and the case diary statement of the witnesses during the investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C., as well as the charge laid down by the police u/s 173, Cr.P.C., do not disclose any offence against the accused, the High Court can interfere at any stage of the proceedings and the interference to quash the proceedings, however, can be had recourse to only on two conditions, viz, if the prosecution allegations, even when accepted as true, do not establish any offence against the accused and where an offence against the accused is established if the allegations are believed but there is no evidence at all to support the allegation. It was further held that it is always open to the High Court to interfere where the facts are preposterous that the High Court feels satisfied that on the admitted facts, there is no case against the accused and when the High Court is clearly of the opinion that further prolongation of the proceeding would amount to harassment, it is in the interests of justice that the High Court should interfere. He also relied an another decision in AIR 1945 13 (Privy Council) wherein their Lordships have observed that if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no Authority to undertake an investigation and If they do so, the High Court may interfere u/s 561-A. Cr. P.C. Then the learned Counsel cited the following observations made in Balwant Singh v. District Food and Supplies Controller 1975 Cri. M.L.J.P. 687 .

The expression in the interest of justice used Section 462 , Crl. P.C., would call for the interference of the High Court in the interest of justice even at the stage where only an F.I.R. is lodged with the police, if the F.I R. does not disclose any offence whatsoever. For, In a matter where the F.I.R. dots not disclose any offence, cognizable or non-cognizable, then allowing the investigating "agency to continue with the investigation and harass a citizen would certainly not be in the interest of justice. Against this kind of harassment of a citizen, the Court must exercise its inherent power whenever its assistance is sought by a citizen.

In this regard, I may point out the observation of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have given some categories of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised. I feel that it is enough for me to indicate the second category mentioned therein, viz., where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises. It is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. Finally, he brought to my notice the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration 1974 M.L.J. Cri. 502 wherein it was held that where a First Information Report had been filed in respect of a cognizable offence and no charge-sheet or complaint had been laid in Court and the matter is still at the stage of investigation by the Police, a petition u/s 561-A , Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings would be premature unless the allegations in the first Information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. As I have already stated supra elaborately, the allegations contained in the complaint given by Kanchana do not disclose or constitute the offence alleged and therefore it cannot be said that the petition u/s 561-A, Cr.P.C., would be premature.

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has also fairly conceded that this is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice and quash the proceedings in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and the various High Courts: See also Ram Narain Vs. Mool Chand and Others, .

For the above discussions, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1581 of 1976 of Dharmapuri Police Station now pending in D.C.B Crime No. 11 of 1975.