CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13859 of 2022
N.Anand ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the District Crime Branch,
Nilgiris District.
(Crime No.6 of 2022)
2. P.Rajkumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the file
of the District Crime Branch, Nilgiris District as against the petitioner/second
accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sugadev Rajaguru
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan for R2
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2022 registered by the respondent police for offences under Section 420 of IPC as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally three accused. A1 and A2 are brothers. The first accused sold the subject property in favour of the de facto complainant namely second respondent herein in the year 2018 by registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1209/2018 in respect of the property comprised in Old Survey No.304/2, New Survey Nos.1626/1&1626/2 admeasuring 1.09 Acres in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kothagiri. However, registered document was not handed over to the de facto complainant. When he enquired about the same, he found that on instructions given by A3, who is a Sub Registrar, Kothagiri, he handed over the original Sale Deed to the first accused. Therefore, the first accused filed a suit in OS.No.24 of 2022 for declaration declaring the sale deed registered as Document NO.1209/2018 is null and void on the ground that the sale consideration was not paid to him. Further allegation is that the second accused, who is an Advocate, earlier who is appearing for the de facto complainant from the year 2019. Now A1 and A2 joined together and cheat https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 the de facto complainant and conspired with the Sub Registrar, Kothagir and received the original document in favour of the de facto complainant. The first accused filed a suit, in which the second accused is the counsel on record. When the second accused already appeared for the second respondent/de facto complainant, he appeared for the first accused and file a suit as against the second respondent, which amounts to misconduct.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the allegation that he directed A3/Sub Registrar to hand over the sale deed in favour of the first accused, the petitioner has no role to play in the crime alleged to have committed by the first accused. The petitioner, being an Advocate, filed a suit on behalf of the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that there are specific averments against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. That apart the petitioner, who is an Advocate, being appeared for the de facto complainant, also appeared on behalf of the first accused and filed a suit as against the de facto complainant. It amounts to misconduct and he is liable to be punished by the Bar Counsel of Tamil Nadu.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 second respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the FIR reveals that a case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. With the intention to cheat the second respondent/de facto complainant, A1 & A2 conspired with A3, who is the Sub Registrar, Kothagiri and received the original Sale Deed. After a period of so many years, they challenged the Sale Deed on the ground that sale consideration was not paid.
7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, 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 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.
8. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 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 statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. ......................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
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."
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
07.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kmi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 To
1. The District Crime Branch, Nilgiris District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kmi CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022 07.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8