© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Madras High Court recently quashed an FIR and ordered Rs 8 lakh compensation to a man towards his mental suffering and “loss of job opportunity”, noting that the case against him had been pending since 2017 without any investigation.
Justice B Pugarendhi was hearing a plea which sought quashing of the FIR and the connected proceedings on the ground that he was unable to find a job in India or abroad due to the pending case.
Referring to the material on record, the court said, “All these show that this criminal case has been foisted as against the petitioner. Therefore, this court is obligated to quash the FIR that is pending against the petitioner. But quashing the FIR alone will not provide complete justice to the petitioner.”
The order went ahead to call it a “fit case” for awarding compensation to the petitioner, adding, “Though petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, he is also a victim of abuse of power entitled for compensation.”
Exercising its compensatory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and its power under Section 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court) Code of Criminal Procedure (528 BNSS), the court directed the “Home Department to pay Rs 8 lakh to the petitioner/victim as compensation for his psychological suffering, social stigma and loss of job opportunity”.
1. The right to life under Article 21 does not refer to the mere physical act of breathing or living. It consists of a much wider range of rights including the right to live with dignity and reputation.
2. The persons affected by crime or their family alone cannot be termed as victims. The concept of “victim” is an evolving concept and there are various types of victims, who are entitled to get protection under the law.
3. It is true that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law but this court cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that the registration and pendency of FIR against a person casts grave stigma, including tarnishing of reputation, loss of social standing, lack of employment opportunities, strained personal relationships, psychological distress due to the legal proceedings and the threat of conviction.
4. The enduring perception of guilt that follows every aspect of a person’s public and private life cannot be underestimated.
The court acknowledged that the present FIR was registered on November 11, 2017, though it was claimed that its copy was sent to the trial court on the same day, the judicial magistrate, Pattukottai, submitted a report stating that it was received by the court in June, 2025.
“Thus it is clear that the FIR in this case has been sent only after a period of eight years in violation of Section 157 CrPC (the original copy of the FIR must be sent without delay to the Magistrate having jurisdiction),” the court said.
While quashing FIR and ordering state for compensation the court outlined that “all these show that this criminal case has been foisted against the petitioner. Therefore, this court is obligated to quash the FIR that is pending against the petitioner.”
“This court is obligated to quash the FIR that is pending against the petitioner. But quashing the FIR alone will not provide complete justice to the petitioner. This is a clear case where the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution have been violated,” it held.
On the FIR, the court considered the police report and allegation against the man.
“It is clear that mere assembly of a group of persons is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 399 IPC, but there must be some materials to show that assembly was for the purpose of preparation to commit dacoity. However, in the case on hand, there is no material to establish the preparation made by the accused and for the incidents said to have taken place in 2017, the respondent police have not filed their final report for the past 8 years,” the order said.
The petitioner’s counsel S Deenadhayalan submitted that the complaint against his client, who was booked under Section 399 (preparation for dacoity) of IPC, had been “foisted on presumption and surmises, without any materials”.
The case, the counsel said, was pending for the last eight years at the investigation stage.
“Therefore the future of this petitioner and other accused is spoiled. He further submits that it also amounts to violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” argued Deenadhayalan.
The court was hearing the petition filed by an accused who sought quashing of the FIR pending against him.
In the state’s Thanjavur district, Madukkur Police booked the man on November 11, 2017, under Section 399 IPC (making preparations to commit dacoity). The police took up the investigation and examined six witnesses. After that the FIR report is kept pending and therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
