CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 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. 21553 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.14006 of 2022
Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Inspector of Police,
H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.113 of 2019) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the record pending on the file of respondent Police namely
State Inspector of Police, H-6 R.K.Nagar Police Station, in Cr.No.113 of 2019
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022 This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.113 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 267 and 473 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others were involved in manufacturing and selling of bogus Dip rod which is used for measuring the oils substance in the tanker lorry.
3. Mr.S.Senthivel, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that A1, namely Sundar @ Somasundaram is the manufacturer of the bogus dip rod and the petitioner purchased the dip rod from A1, that apart there is no allegation against the petitioner. However, the respondent register an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.113 of 2019. Hence, he prays for quashing of FIR.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the would submit that there is a very serious allegation as against the petitioner and this has to be investigated in depth.
5. Heard Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel appearing for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022 petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
6. 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.
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022 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 order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022 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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order rgm/sma https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6 CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sma/Rgm To
1. The Inspector of Police, H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No. 21553 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.14006 of 2022 08.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6