15. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not of routine nature. Exercise of power thereunder requires application of judicial mind. The learned Magistrate exercising said power must remain vigilant with regard to nature of allegations made in the application and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. In an appropriate case, learned Magistrate can verify the truth and veracity of allegations made, having regard to nature thereof and the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C cannot be invoked by a litigant at his own whim to harass others. It can be invoked only by a principled and really aggrieved citizen approaching the Court with clean hands. Prior application under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C and Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C have to be in existence while filing a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and these aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and necessary documents to that effect has to be filed.
16. The complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C does not even whisper about the steps taken under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C The learned Magistrate has simply allowed the application without making any enquiry and even the veracity of the allegations are not verified with the documents. The documents filed on the side of the petitioner clearly shows that he is in possession of the property and only during COVID period the tenant has vacated the premises, which has been taken advantage of by the second respondent by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and mechanically an order has also been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur. The petitioner has also sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell. He also sought details as to on what basis the residential certificate has been issued, however no reply has been given by the authorities.
17. All the above facts clearly probabilise the contention of the petitioner that F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Further, the account summary in respect of the electricity service meter also shows that it is in the name of the petitioner’s mother all along. Such view of the matter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur without applying his mind has mechanically passed the order without even verifying the veracity of the complaint. The second respondent as a member of the very same Bar and also an Official Bearer of the Bar Association, Thiruvottiyur, obtained the order. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur has mechanically passed the said order which suffers from non-application of mind. Further, the said order directing the first respondent police to register F.I.R. against the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (cited supra).
xxx
19. Such view of the matter, this Court holds that the complaint in Crime No.3121 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Party: K.L.Prabakar .. Petitioner vs. 1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, H-8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Chennai – 600 019. 2. C.Rajesh .. Respondents – Crl.O.P.No.13116 of 2022 – 28.07.2022.
Source: Download
URL:
Files : Download
