Dated :23.08.2023
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.18847 of 2023
Introduction:
The case of N. Aswathaman v. State involves a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner. The petitioner, Mr. N. Aswathaman, stands accused of serious offenses including extortion, criminal intimidation, and possession of a firearm. The core issue revolves around the authenticity of the complaint and the subsequent attempt to withdraw it.
Background:
The FIR in question, registered as Crime No.373 of 2023, accuses the petitioner and other individuals of threatening and extorting money from the complainant, Mr. Jayaprakash. Allegedly, the accused approached Jayaprakash at a construction site and demanded regular payments under threat, even showing a pistol. Subsequently, Jayaprakash filed a complaint with the police, based on which the FIR was registered.
Court Proceedings:
Mr. Aswathaman filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking the quashing of the FIR. The grounds for the petition included the contention that the complainant had expressed in an affidavit that he had not lodged the complaint and that he was unaware of the petitioner. Furthermore, the complainant claimed that he was not subjected to any kidnapping or robbery, challenging the authenticity of the charges against the accused.
During an initial hearing, the complainant, Jayaprakash, reiterated his stance before the court, reiterating the affidavit’s contents. Subsequently, the court directed the complainant to appear on a specified date to further inquire into the matter. The court also granted the prosecution additional time to gather instructions.
Prosecution’s Argument:
During the subsequent hearing, the prosecution opposed the quashing of the FIR on the grounds of compromise between the parties. To support this position, they referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in “Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,” which dealt with the seriousness of the offenses and the impact on society even in the face of compromise.
Arguments by Parties:
Mr. Aswathaman’s counsel contended that the petitioner, an advocate, had been falsely implicated due to his representation of other accused individuals. It was suggested that the false case was fabricated as retaliation against him. Additionally, the petitioner’s possession of a gun was justified based on a license issued by the State of Nagaland, which was deemed curious given his Chennai residency.
The prosecution countered that the case was not a normal one, as evidenced by CCTV footage showing the accused at the construction site and at the police station. The prosecution argued that the nature of the allegations, coupled with the petitioner’s background, warranted a thorough investigation.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Upon examining the materials presented and considering the arguments from both sides, the court found that the allegations were indeed serious and required investigation. The court noted that the complainant’s sudden change in stance and attempt to withdraw the case raised doubts about the authenticity of the complaint. Given the background of the accused and the implications of the offenses, the court concluded that this was not a suitable case for quashing the FIR based on compromise.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent, which states that serious offenses involving moral turpitude and societal impact cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise. The court held that it was imperative for the investigation to proceed and for the report to be submitted by the investigating officer.
Conclusion:
The case of N. Aswathaman v. State highlights the delicate balance between the principle of compromise and the seriousness of the alleged offenses. The court’s decision to dismiss the Criminal Original Petition demonstrates the court’s cautious approach when dealing with cases that have a potential societal impact. The case also underscores the court’s role in ensuring that justice prevails and that investigations are conducted thoroughly in the face of serious allegations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
