IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2009 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.O.P.Nos.8050 and 8051 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2009 E.Gokulakrishnan ... Petitioner in Crl. O.P.No.8050/2009/Accused E.Sankar ... Petitioner in Crl. O.P.No.8051/2009/Accused Vs. The Inspector of Police B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station Coimbatore District Tamil Nadu ... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps./Complainant These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in Crime Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008 pending on the file of B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Prabhakaran for Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondent : Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R Crl.O.P.No.8050/2009 has been filed by one E.Gokulakrishnan, advocate practising in Chennai, for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated in crime No.559/2008 on the file of B9- Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore. Similarly, Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009 has been filed by E.Sankar, another advocate practising in Chennai, for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated in crime No.560/2008 on the file of B9-Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore. 2. Cr.No.559/2008 was registered based on the alleged complaint of one K.Srikala, wife of Kumaresan for alleged offences https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC against 1) Dr.Jayanthi, 2) mother of Dr.Jayanthi, 3) brother of Dr.Jayanthi and 4) a woman relative of Dr.Jayanthi. The said case was registered regarding an alleged occurrence that took place in between 2.00 p.m and 5.00 p.m on 07.07.2008. The case was registered on 12.07.2008 at 10.00 a.m. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8050/2009 has been referred to as the third accused with description the brother of Dr.Jayanthi. Hence he has preferred the above said petition Crl.O.P.No.8050/2009 for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.559/2008. 3. Cr.No.560/2008 was registered on 12.07.2008 itself for alleged offences punishable under sections 279 and 506(ii) IPC based on the complaint of one Ganesan against Dr.Jayanthi and three other persons. The said case was registered relating to an alleged occurrence that took place at about 11.30 p.m on 11.07.2008. The de-facto complainant in the said case is none other than the husband's brother of Srikala, the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.559/2008. Though the case was registered against Dr.Jayanthi and three others without naming them, E.Sankar, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009, two other advocates Manivannan and Chinna Alagu and also one Ajmal, the driver of the Tata Safari car bearing Regn.No.TN-07 AS-9696 in which the petitioner and the other two advocates had gone to Coimbatore, were taken by the police and detained by them as the persons accused in Cr.No.560/2008 of Saravananpatti Police Station. The petitioner E.Sankar has filed Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009 for quashing the criminal case registered as Cr.No.560/2008 on the file of the above said police station. 4. The Inspector of Police, B9-Saravananpatti Police Station, Coimbatore has filed separate counter affidavits in Crl.O.P.Nos.8050/2009 and 8051/2009. 5. The petitioners in both the Crl.O.Ps have contended that pursuant to the refusal on the part of Dr.Jayanthi to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards association fee as demanded by one Narasimhan, Secretary of the association of Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, she was threatened by the said Secretary with dire consequences like making the residents of the quarters not to have any contact with her; that on 07.07.2008, the said Secretary of the association Mr.Narasimhan and one Kumaresan disrupted the water supply to the apartment of Dr.Jayanthi by blocking the nozzle in the water tank which necessitated Dr.Jayanthi to remove the said block to restore water supply to her apartment; that at that point of time Srikala, the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.559/2008, her husband Kumaresan and the association secretary Narasimhan picked up wordy quarrel with Dr.Jayanthi; that there after at about 8.30 p.m on 08.07.2008 one Kannian, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station came to the house of Dr.Jayanthi along with the above said Kumaresan and Narasimhan and directed Dr.Jayanthi to vacate the house with a warning that she would have to face dire consequences, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ if she did not do so; that at that point of time, Kumaresan took nine sovereigns of gold jewels kept in her almirah; that when she demanded return of the jewels, she was asked to come to the police station and was also informed that she could get back the jewels, provided she gave an undertaking to vacate the house within a week or so; that the wife of Narasimhan and others with the help of goondas caused threat to kill Dr.Jayanthi pursuant to which Dr.Jayanthi lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station; that the police instead of registering a case and taking action against the persons accused therein, foisted two cases against Dr.Jayanthi and others in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 and thereafter registered a case based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi to make it appear as if she gave a complaint only subsequent to the registration of the above said two cases against her and others; that the police officials who insisted upon withdrawal of the complaint given against the Sub- Inspector of Police, in fact, illegally detained Dr.Jayanthi and others, pursuant to which the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8050/2009 had to move a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court, which ultimately resulted in a order condemning the attitude of the police and awarding a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in all be paid as compensation; out of which each one of Dr.Jayanthi, Manivannan- Advocate, Chinna Alagu-Advocate and Sankar-Advocate were to be paid Rs.1,00,000/- each and the balance Rs.50,000/- was to be paid to driver Ajmal as compensation besides directing disciplinary action to be taken against the erring police officials and that since the cases registered in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 are cases concocted by the police after the lodging of the complaint by Dr.Jayanthi, both the criminal cases registered against the petitioners herein should be quashed. It is the contention of the petitioners that there are inherent defects in the FIR itself, which will make it inherently absurd, besides the same being an abuse of process of law. 6. The Inspector of police in the counter affidavits filed, besides denying the allegations made by the petitioners that the cases in Cr.Nos.559/2009 and 560/2008 were foisted and registered after Dr.Jayanthi lodged a complaint, also contended that the complaint in Cr.No.559/2008 was lodged on 09.07.2008 itself which was immediately assigned CSR No.82/2008 and after enquiry registered as a criminal case in Cr.No.559/2008 on 12.07.2008 at 19.00 Hrs. Similarly, it is his contention that a further complaint was lodged by one Ganesan on 11.07.2008 at 23.00 Hrs. which was immediately assigned CSR No.83/2008 on the file of B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station and subsequently after enquiry registered as Cr.No.560/2008 on 12.07.2008 at 20.30 Hrs. It is the contention raised by the Inspector of police in the counter affidavits filed in both the petitions that on the complaint submitted by Dr.Jayanthi to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore city to the effect that in the presence of Sub-Inspector of Police Kannian, the association Secretary and his henchmen committed dacoity of nine sovereigns of jewel from the house of Dr.Jayanthi, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the complaint was endorsed to Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police for enquiry, who in turn directed the respondent- Inspector of police to enquire into the same; that on 11.07.2008 Dr.Jayanthi, her brothers Sankar-advocate and Manivannan-advocate and one Chinna Alagu-advocate came to the Government Employees' Quarters by a Tata Safari car bearing Regn.No.TN-07 AS.9696 and were pacifying the residents of the quarters but the residents of the Housing Board Quarters squatted in front of the said car to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to express apology for her previous actions; that Dr.Jayanthi and her colleagues tried to start the car and escape from the place in a rash and negligent manner which created a panic among the public; that pursuant to the said incident, the Assistant Commissioner of Police came to the scene and pacified the residents of the Housing Board Quarters, rescued Dr.Jayanthi, Sankar-advocate, Manivannan-advocate, Chinna Alagu-advocate and driver Ajmal from the agitated public and sent them to their place of stay directing them to come to the police station at 9.00 a.m on 12.07.2008; that on 12.07.2008 at 11.00 a.m both parties insisted upon registering cases based on their respective complaints and then the cases were registered. It is the further contention of the respondent that there is no abuse of process of law or that the registration of the cases in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 cannot be stated as inherently absurd and that hence these petitions for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. 7. The submissions made by Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Balamurugan, counsel on record for the petitioners in both the petitions and by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent were heard. The materials placed before the court were also perused. 8. The petitioners in both the Crl.O.Ps. are the brothers of Dr.Jayanthi, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, who is residing at B-3, Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore. Both the petitioners are advocates practising in Chennai. According to them, the said Dr.Jayanthi refused to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- demanded by one Narasimhan, the Secretary of the association of the residents' of the Government Employees Quarters, Ganapathy as contribution for the said association. Whereupon they interfered with the water supply to the flat occupied by Dr.Jayanthi by blocking the nozzle of the pipe leading to her apartment. It is their further case that the sister of the petitioners Dr.Jayanthi had to restore water supply to her flat and that when she was doing so she was abused with filthy language by Srikala, wife of Kumaresan and the above said association Secretary Narasimhan. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the said occurrence, one Kannian, Sub-Inspector of Police, B-9, Saravananpatti Police Station came to the house of Dr.Jayanthi along with the association Secretary Narasimhan, Kumaresan and during the night hours, namely at 8.30 p.m on 08.07.2008 and insisted Dr.Jayanthi to vacate the house; that Kumaresan in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ presence of Sub-Inspector of Police committed robbery of nine sovereign gold jewels; that when Dr.Jayanthi asked for her jewels, the Sub-Inspector of Police and the other two persons informed her that she should come to the police station and give an undertaking in writing to vacate the house within a week or so for retrieving her jewels and that at that point of time one Viji, Srikala, wife of Kumaresan and one Papathi threatened her with lethal weapons. 9. The further case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the above said occurrence, Dr.Jayanthi had lodged a complaint on 09.07.2008 before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore agaisnt the association Secretary Narasimhan and his henchmen for having committed robbery of nine sovereign jewels in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravananpatti Police Station; that the said persons even there after continued to torture Dr.Jayanthi along with the womenfolk Viji, Srikala, Papathi and another Jayanthi, wife of the association Secretary. Dr.Jayanthi requested the petitioner-E.Gokulakrishnan to go over to Coimbatore to sort out the issue and therefore he went to Coimbatore on 09.07.2008 at about 11.30 p.m along with Sankar-advocate, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009, Manivannan-advocate and Chinna Alagu-advocate in Tata Safari car bearing Regn.No.TN-07 AS-9696 of which one Ajmal was the driver. It is their further contention that, as the problem was perpetuating, the petitioners and the other advocates, who accompanied them to Coimbatore along with the petitioners' sister Dr.Jayanthi, met the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore in his office at 5.00 p.m on 11.07.2008; that the Commissioner of Police directed them to meet Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police as required by the Commissioner of Police and the said Assistant Commissioner of Police directed them to go to the spot immediately; that at about 8.00 p.m on 11.07.2008 when they reached the Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, one Mr.Charles, the Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravananpatti Polie Station came there and in the pretext of conducting an enquiry, he insisted upon withdrawal of the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi against Kannian, the Sub-Inspector of Police; that Mr.Gopalsamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police also on his arrival on the spot insisted to withdraw the complaint given by Dr.Jayanthi and that on refusal, the police officials took Dr.Jayanthi, Manivannan- advocate, Chinna Alagu-advocate, Sankar-advocate (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8051/2009) and the driver Ajmal to B-9 Saravananpatti Police Station, detained them illegally there in the police station and thereafter detained them in a lodge and concocted the above said cases in Cr.No.559/2008 and 560/2008 and then registered a case in Cr.No.561/2008 based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi to escape from the consequence of non-registration of the case based on the complaint of Dr.Jayanthi and to intimidate Dr.Jayanthi to withdraw the complaint given by her against Kannian, the Sub- Inspector of Police. It is the contention of the petitioners that both the cases Cr.Nos.559/2008 and 560/2008 were registered in order to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to withdraw the complaint given against a police official, namely Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the petitioners pointed out the number of discrepancies in the First Information Report which according to him would make out a case of clear concoction and abuse of process of law. 10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that a criminal case cannot be quashed at the initial stage on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are not true as the court dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is not supposed to appreciate the evidence. 11. In the State of Haryana and others vs. Bajanlal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has listed out the following categories of cases in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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 uncontraverted allegations made in the First Information Report 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Where, the allegations in the First Information Report 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 the Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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 a 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 the criminal proceeding is initiated) 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; and 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and / or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 12. The case, as propounded by the petitioners do not fall under any one of the categories 1 to 4 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the cases registered against the petitioners and others squarely fall under categories 5 and 7 in so far as the first information reports contain inbuilt contradictions which make it inherently improbable for any prudent person to reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and that the criminal proceedings initiated were manifestly attended with malafide as they had been instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance due to private and personal grudge and to coerce Dr.Jayanthi to withdraw the complaint given by her against Kannian, the Sub-Inspector of Police and others. 13. Let us now consider whether the cases, which are sought to be quashed can fit in the cases categorised as 5th and 7th categories by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajanlal's case. The 5th category comprises cases wherein the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the case on hand the inherent absurdity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in each cases are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In Cr.No.559/2008 the occurrence allegedly took place on 07.07.2008 between 2.00 p.m and 5.00 p.m. However, the FIR reads that the information regarding the occurrence reached the police station at 10.00 a.m on 12.07.2008. However, it has also been stated therein that the said complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, Saravananpatti Police Station at 4.00 p.m on 09.07.2008 and the same was treated as a petition assigning CSR No.82/2008. It is also stated therein that, after conducting enquiry on the petition, a case was registered at 7.00 p.m (19.00 Hrs) on 12.07.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that, if at all it could be true that the complaint lodged by Srikala was received by the Inspector of Police at 4.00 p.m on 09.07.2008 even though the same was kept as a petition initially and later on registered as a criminal case in the column meant for noting the date and time of receipt of information by the police, the original date and time of receipt of the complaint should have been mentioned, which has not been done in the said case. The learned counsel also pointed out the fact that the complaint could not have been given on 09.07.2008 because referring to the occurrence that took place on 07.07.2008, the date of occurrence stated in the complaint was referred to as "yesterday". The vernacular allegation is as under: "new;W 07/07/2008 kjpak; 2/00 kzpapypUe;J 5/00 kzp tiu" In yet another place in the complaint, a second occurrence was said to have taken place on 08.07.2008. The date of 08.07.2008 was referred to as "today". The vernacular allegation is as follows:- ",d;W fhiy 08/07/2008" If it is so, the complaint should have been lodged on 08.07.2008 and not on 09.07.2008. When the dates differ according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very date of occurrence itself will be doubtful. The same is an absurd allegation according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, which will bring the case within the ambit of the 5th class of cases cited in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajanlal's case. 14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent police is not in a position to offer any explanation for the above said discrepancies found in the first information report in Cr.No.559/2008. 15. In Cr.No.560/2008 also, as per the FIR, the occurrence took place at 8.30 p.m on 11.07.2008 and the complaint was lodged with Saravananpatti Police Station at 11.30 p.m on 11.07.2008. However, no case was registered on 11.07.2008 but the same was treated as a petition assigning CSR No.83/2008 and a case was registered at 8.00 p.m on 12.07.2008. Of course the said case was registered based on the complaint of one Ganesan, the contents of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the complaint are to the effect that on 11.07.2008 at about 8.30 p.m at Government Employees' Quarters, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, the Inspector of Police was conducting a spot enquiry relating to the complaint lodged by Srikala on 08.07.2008. Dr.Jayanthi and others came in a Tata Safari car and committed an offence of attempt to hit de-facto complainant and others with the car and thus made an attempt to commit an offence of attempt to murder. Of course they have made an allegation to the effect that when the police officer was conducting an enquiry, the accused persons therein tried to kill the de-facto complainant and others by running a car over them. But, admittedly, no one got injured. The mere fact that no one got injured, shall not be enough to come to the conclusion that the allegations do not make out a case or that the allegations shall be so absurd that no reasonable person would come to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 16. But the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the fact that even the complaint contains an allegation that the said occurrence took place in the presence of the police officials and that the car used by the accused persons was detained by the public in the presence of the police officials and handed over to the police and that in such circumstances, there was no need for a complaint from anybody else and the police officers present at the scene of occurrence themselves could have prepared a report and registered a case. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the fact that though the complainant has chosen to make an allegation to the effect that the Tata Safari car used by the accused persons for the commission of the offences was seized and handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the registration number of the car was not mentioned in the complaint. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the failure to mention the registration number of the car will make it clear that the complaint was created at a later point of time for an ulterior purpose. It is also brought to the notice of this court that if at all such a complaint was given on 11.07.2008 itself regarding an occurrence which took place in the presence of the police officers, wherein it had been clearly stated that an attempt on the life of the de-facto complainant and others was made, the police would not have omitted to register a case immediately and chosen to keep it as a petition to be registered as a criminal case on the subsequent day. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that, in the HCP filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8050/2008 alleging detention of Dr.Jayanthi, Manivannan-advocate, Chinna Alagu-advocate, Sankar-advocate and driver Ajmal, in which the police took a stand that they have not detained anybody and that the vehicle was not seized or taken by the police. 17. Upon considering the submissions made on either side in this regard, this court is of the considered view that the allegations found in the FIR in Cr.No.559/2008 is tainted with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inherent discrepancies and absurdities, which will make it improbable for any reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion that there