1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Samuel Gnanadurai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Muthiapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi Crime No.852 of 2011 2.Mr.Sundara Mahalingam Sub Inspector of Police, Muthiapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. registered in crime No.852 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenzer For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner / sole accused, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.852 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2.Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the sole accusedin the alleged complaint registered in Crime No.852 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent policde for the alleged offences under Sections 4 of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act . He would further submit that the allegation against the accused fixed flux board condemning the hike in bus fare and the milk price in Tamil Nadu by the Government. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit in his argument that the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station had seized the flux board and had given the complaint to which he himself has registered the compliant in Crime No.852 of 2011. He would further submit in his argument that the Inspector of Police has conducted investigation. However, the registration of complainant itself is amounting to an illegal proceedings and it vitiates the subsequent proceedings also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would referred to a judgment of this Court reported in 2004(2)CTC 180 in Kalaiselvan Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Erumaipatti Police Station, Namakkal District in support of his argument. He would draw the attention of the Court a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) MLJ (Crl.) 601 SC for the said proposition of law. He would therefore request the Court to quash the FIR and to pass orders in the petition accordingly. 6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police as Station House Officer, since he was the person who got the reliable information and therefore, he had given the complaint and as himself he registered the same as Station House Officer. He would further submit that the investigation was continued by the respondent Police and some witnesses were already examined and their statements were also recorded . He would further submit that the investigation is yet to be completed and charge sheet is also yet to be filed. He would further submit in his argument that the quashment of FIR should be exercised by the courts sparingly in appropriate cases and therefore, requests the Court to dismiss the petition. 7.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 8.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an accused in the case registered in Crime No.852 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent police. The only point raised by the petitioner was that the complainant, who had witnessed the incident, had given the complaint and the same was registered by himself and such a case cannot be considered as legal and the investigation carried on such illegal registration would vitiate the proceedings and therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. 9.Admittedly, the complaint was given by one Mr.G.Sundaramahalingam, Sub Inspector of Police, Muthiahpuram Police Station, Tuticorin District and in the 6th column of the FIR, the name of the complainant is referred to. The said complaint was registered by the same Sub Inspector of Police on 08.12.2011. 10.The judgment of this Court reported in 2004(2) CTC 180 in Kalaiselvan Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Erumaipatti Police Station, Namakkal District would lay down the principle as follows: "7.On going through the records in this case, I find that Thiru.Vijayaragavan appears to be the first informant, as well as the person, who registered the First Information Report and examined all the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Further, it could very well seen that he is person, who has filed the charge sheet. In such circumstances and in view of the aforesaid decisions, I hold that the investigation is illegal and consequently, the entire prosecution has to be dropped. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the petitioner, who was arrayed as A.5 in the above said Calendar case shall stand discharged of the offences levelled against him." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11.When compared with the facts of the present case, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case since the first informant as well as the person who registered the first information report are one and the same namely, Mr.G.Sundaramahalingam, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station, the registration of the second complaint is an illegal one and the investigation carried on would not sustain. 12.The argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that the quashment of the FIR should be sparingly done in appropriate cases, is not applicable to the present case since it is glaring on the face of the FIR that the first informant as well as the person who registered the first information report are one and the same which is not approvable in law. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the FIR even though it has been investigated and charge sheet has been filed before the Court which is yet to be taken on file by the Court concerned, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR and the subsequent investigation and final report are liable to be quashed. 13.For the forgoing reason, I am of the considered view that the FIR and the charge sheet filed therein are not sustainable and therefore, they are quashed. The petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Muthiapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi. 2. Mr.Sundara Mahalingam Sub Inspector of Police, Muthiapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2011 20.12.2011 arul RJ/18.1.12 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/