High CourtsSingle Bench

Ananthakrishnan vs Nallaswamy and another

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 February 1988 · Citation: (1988) 02 MAD CK 0013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Padmini Jesudurai, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 161, 482
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P. No. 3796 of 1983
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 371 words

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The petitioner who is A1 in Petty Case No. 4189 of 1983 pending before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore for an offence under S. 75 of the City Police Act, invoices the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482, Crl.P.C. to quash the above

proceedings.

2.

Quashing is sought for on the ground that S. 75 City Police Act is a cognizable offence and that, therefore, there should have been an

investigation as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code and witnesses ought to have been examined and only thereafter a charge sheet

ought to have been filed. In the instant case the report of the Head Constable who is said to have witnessed the occurrence forms the basis of a

charge sheet. Hence the proceedings are illegal and have to be quashed.

3.

Thiru S. Pichai, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken by the petitioner in his petition. Learned Public Prosecutor was

also heard.

4.

The record show that Head Constable attached to F3 Nungambakkam Police Station, saw the petitioner and the first respondent using abusive

language, in a public place and fighting, thereby causing disturbance to public tranquility. The above head constable has made a report about the

facts to the police officer incharge of the station. On the basis of that report, the Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam has filed the charge sheet

against the petitioner and the first respondent for an offence under S. 75 City Police Act. No one has been cited as witness. The lower Court

records show that even the Head Constable has not been examined under S. 161, Crl.P.C. No Statement of any witness has been enclosed with

the charge sheet and no such statement has been furnished to the petitioner and the co-accused. These facts make it clear that there has been no

investigation, but, a charge sheet has been filed on the report of the concerned Head Constable. This Court has repeatedly held that there should

be an investigation and then only a final report has to be filed. The proceedings being illegal, Petty Case No. 4189 of 1983 in so far as it relates to

the petitioner has necessarily to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.