1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8445 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.5714 of 2022
Bilal Mansoor ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.21/2021)
2.The Additional District Judge,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No. 21 of 2021, dated
21.11.2021, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as
against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Paramaraj
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 21 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that one Ushen Akbar, who served as Head Clerk and misappropriated more than a sum of Rs.28.10 lakhs from the Government Account, which was meant for the compensation awarded to the victim of the road accident as well as the legal heirs of the deceased persons. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.21/2021 for the offence under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 of IPC.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 registered a case in Crime No. 21 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 of IPC.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.
Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.
Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
7.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.
6.........
7.........
8........
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.04.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No lr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., lr To
1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8445 of 2022 29.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis