Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12300 of 2022
Krishnamoorthy ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The state represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vishnukanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
2.Kamatchi Bai ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR
registered in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arvind
For Respondent 1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Anbalagan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the FIR registered in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that that the defacto complainant had given her 39 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels to her son, brothers in law and the petitioner herein for safe keeping on 13.08.2020. When she asked for her jewels, her brothers in law had given her receipt of mortgage of the jewels kept in REPCO bank. Hence, the complaint and the petitioner has been arrayed as 4th accused in Crime no.465 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner married the defacto complainant's daughter on 19.04.1996, both are belonged to different communities and now they are living happily. While being so, petitioner's father-in-law passed away on 23.04.2020 and the petitioner's wife filed a suit for partition along with her brother for her legal share in respect of the properties of her father in O.S.No.103 of 2020 before the learned District Court, Kancheepuram https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 and the same was pending. He would further submit that the defacto complainant and her brothers-in-law compelled his wife to withdraw the suit. When she refused to withdraw the same, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner for the above said offences. The present FIR is nothing but only to wreck the vengeance on the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to quash the FIR.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed and also produced the copy of the final report before this Court. It revealed that after recording the statement from the witnesses, charges is made out for the offence under Section 420 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
6. On perusal of the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section Section 420 of IPC which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 be quashed in its 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 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."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order nr To
1. The Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, nr Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12300 of 2022 13.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8