Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THIRUKKURAL PERUMAL

Decided
31 January 1995
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 712 · 1995 INSC 87
Also cited as
  • (1995) 2 SCC 449 (22 citing judgments)
  • (1995) SCC(CRI) 387 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 713, margin A

This appeal arises out of an order made by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 9th November, 1993, in Criminal Original Petition No. 8730/92, Crl. M.P. No. 4794/92 and Crl. M.P. No. 6765/92. The learned Judge quashed the First Information Report, Crime No. 246/92 of P.S. Tallakulam, in so far as the respondent is concerned as also the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom against him.

p. 713, margin B

We have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 713, margin C

M.S.K. Shanmugovel Chettiyar lodged a first information report at P.S. Tallakulam against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 147/148/342/323/395/SOO(ii) and 109 IPC. Investigation was taken in hand and some evidence was collected by the investigating agency. The respondent filed a. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court and by the imugned order the petition was allowed and the proceedings emanating from crime case 246/92 (supra) were quashed. From a bare perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it appears that while quashing the proceedings reliance, has been placed upon some evidence collected ..by the investigating agency during the investigation. The approach of the learned Judge in relying upon such evidence, which is yet to be produced before the trial court, to quash the criminal proceedings in crime case No. 246/92 (supra) was not proper. The power of quashing a FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extra-ordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and 11uash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Ha1yana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335 but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuine- . ness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collec~ed during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The learned Single Judge apparently fell into an error in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of the allegations made in the FIR on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation. The order of the learned Single Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is hereby set aside.

pp. 713–714, margin D

We clarify that nothing said hereinabove cir by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impuged Judgement shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, expressly or impliedly, and the trial court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court or by this Court. A.G. Appeal allowed.

p. 714, margin B