CRL.O.P.No.21360 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.21360 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13896 of 2022
1. Rajasekar
2. Selvakumar
3. Chandrasekar
4. Moorthy
5. Sathishkumar
6. Srinivasan
7. Krishnakumar
8. Mohan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State represented by
Inspector of Police,
K-5 Peravallur Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.291/2022)
2. VaijayanthiMala ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Crime No.291 of 2022 pending on the file of
1st respondent herein, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.K.Venkatesan for R2
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.291 of 2022 registered by the respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2022 the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police. On 14.06.2022 the Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted an enquiry by summoning both side parties and registered a CSR No.288/2022. Further on 24.06.2022 against the 2nd respondent gave a written complaint at the request of first respondent alleging that on 27.01.2022 the second respondent's daughter called to her house. While the second respondent and her daughter talking outside at her home, at that time the father-in-law of the second respondent's daughter abused the second respondent and her mother in filthy language and insulted her. After that the relatives of the second respondent daughter's mother-in-law's relatives A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 abused second respondent in filthy language, damaged the vehicle brought by her. Further, A1 attacked the de facto complainant, after that police came and rescued them. After that A3, A4 & A8 threatened the second respondent saying they will create further problem by coming to her home. A2 threatened 2nd respondent's daughter to sign in mutual divorce or else he will do whatever he want and get https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022 escape paying money. Aggrieved over it, the second respondent lodged the above complaint.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
4. 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.
5. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022 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. ......................
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022 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."
6. 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 5 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kmi To
1. The Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallur Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.21360 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13896 of 2022 07.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6