1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15271 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Manivannan ... Petitioner Vs. State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul,(Crime No.482 of 2011) ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.482 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mrs.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner / A2 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.482 of 2011 on the file of the respondent / Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul. 2.Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner was ranked as Accused No.2 in the alleged complaint registered in Crime No.482 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul for the alleged offences under Sections 6(4) of TNCS (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He would further submit that the first accused was one Arumugam and the allegation against the accused 1 and 2 was that the first accused was found in possession of two bags of ration noon-dhal weighing 50 Kgs. each and one bag of ration rice weighing 50 Kgs. without any permission and the first accused was said to have given a confession regarding the said crime and he has implicated the petitioner as co-accused by stating that the petitioner has also conspired with the first accused to do the said offence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 said PDS rice and moongdhall and had given the complaint to which he himself has registered the compliant in Crime No.482 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. 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 her argument that the case was registered by the Special Sub Inspector of Police as Station House Officer, since he was the person who got the reliable information and was looking out the illicit movement of essential commodities and on suspicion stopped the TVS-50 motor cycle bearing TN-45-P-7866 with three gunny bags, viz., two bags containing 50 kgs. Moong dhall and one bag containing 50 kgs. of rice which seemed to be the PDS commodities and therefore, he had given the complaint and as himself he registered the same as Station House Officer. She would further submit that the investigation was continued by the respondent Police and 16 witnesses were already examined and their statements were also recorded and the charge sheet was laid on 11.11.2011 and the final report under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act was also laid. She would further submit that the said charge sheet is yet to be taken on file. She would further submit in her 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 ranked as A2 in the case registered in Crime No.482 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul. The first accused was one Arumugam who was stated to have given confession statement and on that basis only the petitioner was implicated as second accused. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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.Karunanithi, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Dindigul and in the 6th column of the FIR, the name of the petitioner is referred to. The said complaint was registered by the same Special Sub Inspector of Police on 25.08.2011 and it was referred to one Chakravarthy, Inspector of Police to investigate the case. 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." 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.Karunanithi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station, the registration of the said 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Dindigul 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. nbj rl/3 c- 4.1.2012 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15271 of 2011 15.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/