VENKADACHALAPATHY Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed to quash the FIR in crime No.279 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent insofar as A1, A3 and A4 are concerned.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/complainant lodged a complaint before the third accused, alleging that the first accused made a false representation as if his father died and obtained privilege pass for his brother Thiru.Karumaran, who arraigned as A2 to travel in First Class by Train. On verification, it was found that on the date of issuance of privilege pass, the father of A1 and A2 viz., Pichandi was very much alive and therefore, they cheated the railway department and also railway department sustained huge loss. The third accused was the Station Manager, who has to lodge a proper complaint before the first respondent as against the first accused. However, even after the receipt of the said complaint, the third accused did not lodge proper complaint as against the first accused. Therefore, the second respondent/complainant filed an appeal before the fourth accused for a direction, directing the concerned railway officer to lodge a complaint as against the first accused. Though the officials were in possession of all documents in respect of the offences committed by the first accused, they did not take any steps to lodge a complaint before the first respondent. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent directly. However, after receipt of the same, the first respondent also did not register the same. Therefore, the second respondent approached this Court for direction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this Court directed the first respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4989 of 2013, by order dated 29.04.2013 to go through the contents of the complaint and if it disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, they are duty bound to register the first information report and investigate the same in accordance with law and file the final report. On such direction, the first respondent registered the case in crime No.279 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 177 and 420 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and another.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there are totally four accused in this crime number, in which, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.949of 2014i s arraigned as A1, the petitioner in Crl.O.O.(MD) No.3782 of 2014 is arraigned as A3 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3783 of 2014 is arraigned as A4.