Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Although the court observed that the FIR itself was not maintainable in law and therefore the anticipatory bail was not even maintainable, the court felt it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and interfere with the FIR.

“The FIR which was registered against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Technically this anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable as the offense is vacable. However, the Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC, is inclined to interfere with the FIR, as the very registration of FIR for a non-cognizable offence, without obtaining the appropriate orders of the learned Magistrate is illegal.“, the court said.

Section 303 of the NBS talks about Theft. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 303, whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both and on the second or subsequent conviction of any persons under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may not be less than 1 year, but which may be extended up to 5 years and with a fine. The proviso to the section states that in case of theft, if the value of the stolen goods is less than Rs. 5000 and the person convicted for the first time, upon restitution of the value of the goods or upon the return of stolen goods, shall be punished with community service.

The court was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Jebaraj, staying the arrest for an alleged offense under Section 303(2) of the NBS on the file of the Tirunelveli Police Station. The alleged case against Jebaraj was that he had stolen tires from the de facto plaintiffs’ shop worth Rs. 3000.

The court held that the value of the stolen goods was Rs. 3000 and would come under the ambit of non-cognizable offence. Thus, under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the FIR could be registered only after obtaining the appropriate order from the Magistrate. Thus, the court considered that the registration of the FIR, without the order of the Magistrate, is illegal.

The court was thus inclined to quash the FIR and allowed the plea.

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan

Counsel for the defendants: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)