23 FIR quashedGLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *W.P. 3574/2018* V. Anbazhagan Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Dated: 05.07.2021 *Hon’ble Justice M. Dhandapani* allowed all the Criminal Original Petitions and closed the Writ Petition as nothing survives in the
*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*W.P. 3574/2018*
V. Anbazhagan Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Dated: 05.07.2021
*Hon’ble Justice M. Dhandapani* allowed all the Criminal Original Petitions and closed the Writ Petition as nothing survives in the matter relating to *“False Complaints/FIRs filed against a member of the Press and wrongly arrested”* and further observed and held the following:
i) More than two dozen cases had been instituted against the petitioner under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint in all the cases is that the petitioner threatened the respective defacto complainants that he will publish scandalous materials against them if they do not pay ransom money. The respective defacto complainants had filed FIRs before the police, of which, some of the complaints had been taken cognizance by the respective magistrate.
ii) The Hon’ble Court observed that, though the issues raised in the complaints were a matter of trial, the same would not deter the High Court from looking into the complaints to determine the prima facie nature of the allegations and the genuineness and truthfulness of the complaint vis-a-vis the petitioner. It was further observed that, in some of the complaints, though the demand is alleged to have been made by the petitioner, however, the complaint has been lodged after a delay and there is nothing in the complaint to explain the reason for the said delay.
iii) The Hon’ble Court had observed that the course that is open to the complainants against the derogatory articles, which are allegedly false and untrue, is only to take appropriate action under S. 499 of IPC for defamation and it is not within the realm of the law enforcing agency to register an FIR relating to untrue and false allegations that are said to have been published.
iv) It is pertinent to note that, the fulcrum of all those cases is the phone call/WhatsApp message, etc., which are said to have been sent to the complainants, but despite the passage of about five years, no steps had been taken to collect and submit the call records and the complaints are also silent as to the phone numbers from which the calls/WhatsApp messages had emanated. Secondly, some complaints revealed that the Petitioner had come in person to the office of the defacto complainants, the question that arises is what prevented the complainants from apprehending the petitioner with the aid of the personnel in the office and hand him over to the law enforcing agency along with the complaint.
v) The Hon’ble Court, quashed all FIRs registered against the Petitioner for the above reasons, inter alia. The Hon’ble Court had also observed that the common man looks upon the law enforcing agency as his saviour, therefore, the higher echelons in the law enforcing department take the matter seriously and keep a continual watch on the performance of their subordinates so that the law enforcing agency acts within the rule of law and for the betterment of the citizens and the society.
