Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.13831 of 2022
1. K.Sundarajan
2. K.Subramaniam
3. S.Pappathi
4. S.Prabhu ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State represented by,
1. The Inspector of Police,
Puduchathiram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.134 of 2022)
2. Rengasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records made in FIR Crime No.134 of
2022 on the file of Inspector of Police, Puduchethiram Police Station, the
First Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records made in FIR Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file of Inspector of Police, Puduchethiram Police Station, the First Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant availed hand loan from the first petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- for family expenses for which, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the second petitioner, for the land belongs to the defacto complainant's wife. Thereafter, the defacto complainant availed further loan for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the first petitioner for the marriage expenses of his daughter, for which, again the first petitioner demanded to execute a sale deed for the land which belongs to the defacto complainant's father, on the promise of cancelling the Power of Attorney and sale deed on Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022 repayment of the entire loan amount. Believing his words, the defacto complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the third petitioner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and when he asked the first petitioner to cancel the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the second petitioner and the sale deed executed in favour of the third petitioner, the petitioners refused to cancel and demanded further money with huge interest and also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 120B, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 120B, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in its 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. Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
7. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of 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 Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022 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 statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.
......................
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 Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022 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 in Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Puduchathiram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.13831 of 2022
06.09.2022
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis