When Prosecution Itself Is Infested With Motive, Court Can Interfere & Quash The Same To Prevent Abuse Of Process Of Law: Madras High Court
While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one. The accused was found in possession of 96 IMFL rum bottles in a car. The car was intercepted and the rum bottles were seized by...
While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one.
The accused was found in possession of 96 IMFL rum bottles in a car. The car was intercepted and the rum bottles were seized by the investigating officer. The crime was registered on 10.07.2021 and the final report was filed on the very next day on 11.07.2021. The petitioner claimed that the prosecution was nothing but an abuse of process of law and no materials were available on record to proceed against the accused.
After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that there was no necessity to destroy the IMFL liquor. Destruction was usually made where toddy, wash, sonti soru or illicit arrack was found. In the present case, it was not the case of the prosecution that the liquor was illicit. Hence, there was no reason for not producing the bottles or the photographs taken by the investigating officer before the trial court.
The court also noted that the occurrence took place on 11.07.2021 but the FIR was registered on 10.07.202, prior to the occurrence of the alleged offence. It was also noted that the final report was filed on 11.07.2021 before the FIR reached the court. The FIR reached the court only on 23.07.2021. This clearly established that the prosecution was a malafide one.
The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed.
Normally, the Court's would not venture into the probative value of the statements recorded or materials collected by the police while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But, at the same time, when the Court finds very prosection itself is infested with a motive and instituted due to statistical purpose without any materials, the Court can very well interfere and quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law.
In view of the same, the final report was quashed and the present criminal original petition was allowed.
Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another
Case No: CRL.O.P.No. 16140 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Manoj Kumar for Mr.Dharani Subramanian
Counsel for the Respondents: E.Raj Thilak for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor