(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the First Information report in Crime No.629 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent dated 08.06.2017 and quash the same as illegal.)

1. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.629 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent, filed this petition to quash the F.I.R.

2. The prosecution case is as that on 07.06.2017, the second respondent’s husband, viz., Ravichandran was attacked by the unknown persons with deadly weapons, while he was returning home from his advocate office at Sekkadi, Melur, at about 09.30 p.m.. Thereafter, the injured was given first aid at Allah Hospital, Melur and later, he was brought to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. The 2nd respondent given complaint suspecting that the first petitioner, who is the brother of her husband, could have attacked her husband, due to property dispute. Based on the information given by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 629 of 2017 on 08.06.2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 109, 324 and 307 of IPC against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5. A5 died.

3. The grounds raised in the quash petition is as that there is a vague allegation against the petitioners. Only unknown and known persons attacked, in which, the second respondents complaint reveals, based on the property dispute between the first accused and the second respondent's husband having somebody attacked with the injured, the second respondent has given a false complaint. There is no ingredients to connect the petitioners to the offence mentioned by the second respondent. The essential ingredients under Section 307 I.P.C is not made out. The allegations made in the F.I.R fall within the category numbers 1 and 7 in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Therefore, the F.I.R against all the petitioners liable to be quashed.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the records. Considered the submissions raised by both sides.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether the quash petition is liable to be allowed or not?

6. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.629 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent Police Station have approached this Court by filing the present quash petition. There are five accused in the case. Out of whom A5 died, as stated in the quash petition.

7. The second respondent set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint, which resulted in the registration of Crime No. 629 of 2017 on 08.06.2017. The First Information Report given by the second respondent reveals that her husband, Ravichandran, went to his advocate's office on 07.06.2017 and, while returning home at around 09.30 p.m., reached his house and parked his vehicle. At that time, known and unknown persons attacked her husband with an aruval and a wooden log, stating that he should die then and there, and abused him in filthy language.

8. On hearing the hue and cry, when she opened the door of the house, the assailants abused her in filthy language and stated that the injured person had died, and thereafter they left the place on a motorcycle. On hearing her alarm, the neighbours came to the spot, and the injured person was taken to Allah Hospital, Melur, for first aid. After being given first aid, he was shifted to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, where he was admitted to the ICU for treatment. Upon receipt of the message from the hospital, the first respondent Police came to the hospital and, on enquiry, she gave a complaint.

9. The F.I.R. further reveals that there was a civil dispute between her husband and his brother, Rajaram, who is the first petitioner/A1, in respect of the property. There was a panchayat held in the presence of elders and relatives, but the dispute was not resolved. Suspecting the involvement of the first petitioner due to the property dispute, she gave a complaint stating that the first accused had abetted the commission of the crime and engaged hooligans to murder her husband. Based on her complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.629 of 2017 for the offences mentioned above.

10. The arguments of the petitioners' counsel is as that though the second respondent alleged that there was a property dispute, as per the version of the complaint itself, the petitioners did not present at the scene of occurrence nor attacked the injured person. It was only the unknown persons, who attacked the injured person, and the allegation against the petitioner is concocted and fabricated.

11. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that, though the second respondent stated that known and unknown persons assaulted the injured person, there was a property dispute between the first accused and the injured person, Ravichandran, and a panchayat was held, but the dispute was not resolved. Therefore, the first petitioner had engaged hooligans and abetted the commission of the crime, and hence, Section 109 of the IPC was also invoked in the FIR. The real assailants are to be ascertained only during the course of investigation. The injured person underwent treatment for nearly one month in the hospital for five injuries sustained on different parts of his body. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. Only after a thorough investigation can the real assailants and the role of the accused be ascertained. Hence, the quash petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court Full Bench decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on considering the earlier decisions in large number and culled out the principles emerged therein, holding that quashing the power should to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and it has been observed in the rarest of rare cases and the Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations and the police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint / F.I.R. does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, the investigating agency finds that there is no substance in the complaint made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report before the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

13. Citing the above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and that the major offence is under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused attacked the injured person with deadly weapons, namely, an aruval and a wooden log. The injured person initially took treatment at Allah Hospital, Melur, and thereafter at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, where he was admitted to the ICU and subsequently shifted to the normal ward for 30 days. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Only after the completion of the investigation can the real accused be identified, particularly with regard to the allegation that the first accused abetted the commission of the crime. Hence, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.

14. The contention of the petitioners that the ingredients of the offences are not found in the FIR is liable to be rejected for the reasons as per the complaint statement, known and unknown persons attacked the injured person with deadly weapons of aruval and wooden log, thereby attracting Sections 147, 148, 324, and 307 of the IPC. As against the first accused, the allegation is that he abetted the commission of the crime through the hooligans. Therefore, Section 109 of the IPC is also attracted. These are matters for trial and have to be elucidated during the course of evidence, particularly as to whether the first accused abetted the commission of the offence or not. The investigation is not yet completed, and at this stage, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. They have to await the result of the investigation, and only thereafter can they decide upon their further course of action.

15. The further contention of the petitioners that the case in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which gives the grounds for quashing criminal proceedings. However, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing the FIR, the police are entitled to proceed with the investigation and, upon completion of the investigation, and giving final report, thereafter the said grounds can be considered to determine whether the case is to proceed or not. At this stage, the case of the petitioners cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.

16. In such view of the above discussion, this quash petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered against the petitioners.

17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The first respondent is directed to expedite the investigation in Crime No.629 of 2017, where the crime number is of the year 2017, and file a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, within a period of three months from today. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.