Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 22, 2022 at 20:13 IST
The Madras High Court emphasised that FIRs are not ordinary things and may have an impact on an individual’s rights. It harshly criticised the Magistrate’s action for directing the formation of a FIR against an accused without proper consideration.
An appeal brought by the Inspector of Police at Vadapalani Police Station against the order of Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate ordering the SHO at Virugambakkam Police Station to file a FIR was being heard by Justice N Satish Kumar.
The main issue in the case was that the third respondent, the de facto complainant, was a lawyer who was travelling with her husband during COVID-19 restrictions. They were intercepted by the police. The de facto complainant’s husband was charged in an altercation and was later charged with a crime under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act of 1888 before being freed on station bail.
The de facto complainant and her husband were both admitted to the hospital later that evening while feigning injuries. The petitioners’ attack on the de facto complainant’s husband allegedly resulted in a report being made at Virugambakkam Police Station, but it was not recorded.
The Commissioner of Police was then presented with a complaint, who found that the complaint was motivated and exaggerated and hence, closed the same. Then a private complaint was made to the Metropolitan Magistrate.
The court stated that the aforementioned facts would clearly show that the private complaint was initiated solely to seek vengeance on the police authorities. Even if the accusations were genuine, the petitioner was performing his official duties at the time of the alleged incident, so there must have been a prior sanction before moving further against such an officer.
The following was noted by the court: “Therefore, this Court finds that the criminal proceeding has been maliciously instituted by the de facto complainant and her husband to wreck vengeance against the officer who proceeded against them previously. Hence, this Court can very well interfere by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC.”
As a result, the court allowed the Inspector’s petition and quashed the order made by the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate. The private complaint was therefore also dismissed.