AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maheswaran, J.—This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in CPC No. 5436 of 1983 on
the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The facts which led the Petitioner to apply to this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal
Procedure are these: On 28th September, 1983 at about 7:00 P.M. the Petitioners went to a tailor''s shop named ''Kumaran Tailors'' and placed
orders for making some shirts. When they were taking tea in the adjoining shop, a police constable attached to E-A Police Station wanted them to
accompany him to E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station. They went to the police station and were detained there by the Sub-Inspector and a case
u/s 75 of the City Police Act was registered. No reasons were given for registering a case against them and later they were released on bail. The
said case is pending before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate.
The reasons given for quashing the proceedings are that the offence punishable u/s 75 of the City Police Act being a cognizable offence, should
have been investigated In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that having not been done, the proceedings are
vitiated and should be quashed. The further contention is that the illegal detention is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
From the records filed in this case, it is seen that charge-sheet has been filed against the Petitioners u/s 75 of the City Police Act. Section 24 (H)
at of the Madras City Police Act says that any offence made punishable by Sections 45, 46, 49-A, 72 or 75 shall be cognizable. Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, states that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in
charge of a police station shall be reduced to Writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant and every such information
shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered into a book to be kept by such officer. Section 4(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, is to the effect that all offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried or
otherwise dealt With in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code. Section 4 (2) states that all offences under any other law shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force
relating to the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into or otherwise dealing with such offences. It should be noted that the City Police Act
does not in any way regulate the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into or otherwise dealing with such offences. In the absence of any such
regulation in respect of investigation, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure atone will apply for such investigation.
Learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the fact that entries regarding attest have been made in the general diary and para book and
guard book and petty case register. In this case no F.I.R. was registered, there has been no investigation in accordance with the provisions of
Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure to be followed for investigation u/s 157 has also not been followed; Witnesses have not
been examined No statements were recorded in accordance with Section 161 (3) of the Code and; no copies of statements were furnished to the
accused. No report was submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 173. Therefore, the proceedings in C.P.C No. 5436 of 1983 on
the file of the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate are clearly vitiated and have to be quashed and are hereby quashed.