Case Briefs
Truth and Youth (TAY) 2021. All rights reserved.

G. Chitra Poornima v. State


Author: Dhruv Khurana, student at ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad.


Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12334

Date: 9 April 2021

Bench: H.P Sandesh

Original Judgement: View

 

Issue in Question:

  • Whether the FIR filed by the respondents can be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC?

Background of the Case:

  • Petitioner no. 1 is the second wife of Sri. George Thangiah, who is the owner of the property in which the construction of the mall is to be done. The complaint is made on the company that is carrying out the real estate development business.
  • Sri. George Thangiah is aged and his second wife (Petitioner no. 1) took over the business and started harassing the respondents. According to the rights mentioned, they installed barricades on all the four sides of the property, a big hoarding and a POTA cabin was installed with proper lighting, etc.
  • Petitioner no. 1 with ill intention of cheating made a false dispute between the parties which led to the arbitration process. Petitioner no. 1 came with goons and destroyed a barricade installed in the property, which also led to an arbitration process. An award was passed in the arbitration proceedings and again petitioner no. 1 came with goons and destroyed the remaining barricades. Petitioner no. 2 was also actively involved in this.
  • The respondents suffered a huge loss due to the destruction of the barricades, hoardings and the POTA cabin, which led to the criminal conspiracy. Hence, they filed a police complaint and requested them to take action against the petitioners. 
  • Due to the registration of FIR, the portioners filed a petition in the High Court of Karnataka.

Judgement:

  • The court stated that the contents of the complaints suggest that this was a cognizable offence and there was no relevant reason to quash the FIR against the petitioners. It is the settled law that the fact of a civil dispute pending before the city civil court cannot be a ground to quash proceedings.
  • The court referred to the case of The Supreme Court of India, between Priti Saraf and another v State of NCT of Delhi, which held that the arbitration proceedings cannot be the reason to quash the FIR. In this case, the petitioners wanted to quash the FIR and also ignore the order of the High Court in quashing the charge sheet.
  • In this case the court held that the police officers have to investigate the crime as per the procedure mentioned under the CrPC. Therefore, Section 482 of CRPC will not applicable here and the petition was dismissed.

Analysis:

  • Section 482 of CrPC refers to the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. Under this section nothing can affect or limit the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the present code, or to protect the process of any other court to secure the end of justice. In the present case, Section 482 of CrPC will not be applicable as there is no need to do so, as the High Court should not interfere with the case already on hand in which the investigation has to take place.
  • In the present case the court took the right decision of not interfering into the civil matter which was still pending in the city civil court as, invoking section 482 of CrPC will mean the end of justice and it would be not fare for the respondents as they suffered huge losses due to the attacks by the goons sent by Respondent no. 1 and 2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Total
0
Share