The Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the Instant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.417 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Coimbatore for the offence under Sections 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 Madras Act No.III of 1888 and Sections 353, 506(i) of I.P.C.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on 04.02.2013 the petitioners who are wife and husband respectively entered into the chamber of the defacto complainant intimidated her by uttered obscene words and also threatened her that she would be put into behind the bars and the 2nd petitioner tried to assault the defacto complainant. So, complaint was given on 04.02.2013 itself and the case was registered on 22.04.2013. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that no prima facie case is made out even though the complaint of the defacto complainant was taken up for consideration. At the same time the instant case is motivated and prior to the case there is no cordial relationship between the 1st Petitioner and defacto-complainant as seniority problem was in existence between the 1st Petitioner and defacto-complainant as both of them working in a Government College as teaching staffs. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a Writ Petition in W.P.No.25857 of 2013 was filed by the 1st petitioner wherein the defacto complainant was cited as 3rd respondent. The further contention is that the petitioners have not committed any offence and the allegations leveled in the complaint have not made out any case. Therefore, according to him the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.417 of 2014 is to be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1st respondent would submit that the case of the prosecution is based on the complaint of the defacto-complainant and statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and makes out the offence as mentioned in the final report. Further, he contended that the merits of the case shall not be looked into in the quash petition. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the quash petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the acts of the petitioners have clearly made out the offence as mentioned in the First Information Report; he added further that the petitioners have committed the offence in the working place that too in an educational institution. So, the same has to viewed seriously and no leniency would be shown to the Petitioners in any manner.
5. I heard Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on records.
6. The case on hand has revealed that there was seniority dispute among the teachings staffs of an educational institution, wherein the 1st petitioner and defacto-complainant are working. Even prior to the registration of the instant case, complaints were sent to the concerned higher authority claiming seniority. Further, when the complaint of the defacto-complainant is perused, it has not made out any case as mentioned in First Information Report. Further, the delay has not been properly explained, but simply stated that the case was registered after preliminary enquiry. But in the final report filed, there is no material to show as to whether any preliminary enquiry was conducted. When no material is available to prove that preliminary enquiry was conducted, then it has to be observed that the delay was not properly explained. Here, the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 04.02.2013 and the First Information Report was registered on 22.04.2013 it is the duty of the prosecution to give proper explanation for such huge delay.
7. It is also to be taken into account as to the complaint of the Defacto complainant makes out any offence under Sections 75 (1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and also Section 353, 506(i) of I.P.C. Admittedly the complainant is serving as a Head of the Department in the Government Arts College (Autonomous) in the Chemistry Department, Coimbatore. But in her complainant she has simply alleged that she was intimidated by the petitioners, but she has given a developed version in the investigation of the Police as far as Section 75(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act. It is read as follows:
“Found behaving in a violent or boisterous or disorderly or Riotous or indecent manner or any threatening, abusing, or insult word, which causes or is to likely to cause a breach of public peace”.
8. When the complaint of defacto-complainant is perused, it does not make out any case as per the ingredients, as contemplated in the said provision. Moreover, rivalry was in existence among the teaching staffs in aforesaid college at the relevant point of time.
9. At this juncture, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal case reported in 1992 supp (1) Supreme Court cases, 335 is brought to the notice of this Court, where it is held that the allegations made in the First Information Report, all 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 any case against the accused then Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised by using the inherent powers.
10. In my considered opinion as the complaint of defacto- complainant is lodged followed by previous motive, it is not advisable to permit the same to proceed with further. Further, even the complaint of the defacto-complainant is taken up for consideration, it has not made out any offence as alleged. Therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.417 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore for the offence under Section 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 Madras Act No.III of 1888 and Sections 353, 506(i) of I.P.C., is liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed.
11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.417 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.11.2017 vs Index : Yes Speaking order To The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
vs Pre-delivery Judgment made in Crl.O.P No.26842 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 14.11.2017