VIJAYAKUMAR CHOPRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed to call for the records relating to P.C.F.No.13138 of 1988 on the file of the XIII M.M., Madras and to quash the proceedings therein, in the interests of justice. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested by the respondent on 29.5.1988 for an alleged offence under Sec.75 of the City Police Act. The first informant is said to be one Kalpana, a tenant in the premises, wherein the incident, the subject matter of the offence, took place.

(2.) THE complaint of Kalpana states that she is residing along with her parents at No.58, Nagappa Iyer Street, Madras-5. On the morning of 29.5.1988 when she was taking water in the tap inside the house, there was a quarrel between her and the wife of the petitioner. Later, they took water without dispute. Sometime later, the wife of the petitioner told her husband about the earlier tap quarrel and on that, the petitioner called Kalpana, abused and beat her by catching hold of her tuft. THE complainant was sent to the doctor who had noticed an abrasion on the wrist of Kalpana. No other injury was found.

(3.) A perusal of the records furnished to the petitioner clearly reveals that except the complaint and the charge-sheet, there is no other material. It is not known as to how the charge-sheet contains details which do not form part of the complaint. This Court has taken the view that offence under Sec.75 of the City Police Act, being cognizable investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be done, failure of which would vitiate the proceedings. It is seen from the records that investigation has not been done in accordance with the provisions of Secs.156 and 157, Criminal Procedure Code. No statement has been recorded under Sec.161(3), Criminal Procedure Code to be furnished to the accused under Sec.209, Crl.P.C. The report submitted is also not in accordance with the provision of Sec.173, Cr.P.C. There is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner was either drunk or was behaving in a violent or riotous or indecent manner in a public place, causing annoyance to the public or the neighbours. None of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Sec.75 of the City Police Act is found in the records. On legal and factual aspects, the proceedings are clearly violated and have to be quashed. This petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.