Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21374 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13911 of 2022
1. Naresh Kumar
2. Krishnaveni
3. Jithenthar
4. Kanjaloshana ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State, represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kallakurichi Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.
2. Mohan Ranganathan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records made in FIR, Crime No.118 of 2022 on the file
of Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, the first respondent herein
and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R3 : Mr.S.N.Subramani
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022 This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.118 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent had lodged a complaint alleging that the first petitioners obtained signature from the mentally disordered person namely Geethesan and had obtained Patta in respect of the subject property only with the intention to grab the entire property. Further, it is alleged that the will executed in favour of Geethesan on 22.01.2018 vide Registered Document No.06 of 2018, also categorically mentioned that the said Geethesan is a mentally disordered person.
3. In fact in O.S.No.15 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem, declared that the said Geethesan is a mentally disordered person. While being so, the accused persons obtained the signature from the un-sound person and obtained patta transfer using fabricated documents to grab the property. Hence, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.118 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said Geethesan is not a mentally disordered person and he further submits that the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2016 was dismissed for default. In fact, the second respondent/defacto complainant is facing a charge for the offence under Section 302 for killing their own mother.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are guardians of Geethesan,who is the only son of Kumudha and the said Geethesan studied B.C.A and Engineering. However, there is a life threat from his cousins and therefore, the first petitioner got legal heir certificate and based on the said legal certificate, he obtained patta. Despite of the subject property which was obtained by will in favour of the said Geethesan. In fact, the second respondent/defacto complainant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer as against the transfer of Patta and the same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer that too through video conferencing. Now, appeal is pending before the District Collector therefore, there is no allegation of fabrication or falsification of documents to attract offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. Hence, he prays to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022
8. Heard Mr.S.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.N.Subramani, learned counsel for the second respondent.
9. There are serious allegations as against the petitioners, since they obtained signature from the mentally disordered person and obtained patta. In fact, the patta was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Though the appeal is pending before the District Collector, there is a prima facie case made out by registering FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. That apart, in case of Section 302, the investigation is to be done to unearth the matter.
11. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022 accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
12. 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022 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 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."
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022 quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.439 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order Sma/Rgm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sma/Rgm To
1. The Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21374 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No. 13911 of 2022 08.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8