CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 21661 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14042 of 2022
Abinandhan Gulecha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
G3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.692 of 2020
2. Mr.Magesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for entire records pertaining to the Crime No. 692 of 2020 on
the file of the Inspector of Police, G3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Raja
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed tocall for entire records pertaining to the Crime No. 692 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, G3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.
2. It is seen that there are totally 15 accused and the petitioner is arrayed as 15th accused. It is alleged that when the respondent police while on rounds in patrol, at that time, he found that the accused persons were illegally playing rummy by depositing money.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the premises and he has rented it to the first accused and as such, he has no knowledge about of the occurrence took place in the premises. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.692 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 45 and 46 of Tamilnadu City Police Act, 1988, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022 investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.
5. 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.
6. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022 "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. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022 alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sma
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2020, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.692 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order Sma To
1. The Inspector of Police, G3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6 CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022 CRL.O.P.No. 21661 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.14042 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/6