Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.13164 of 2022
M.Devnamathur ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
E2 Reddiarpalayam Police Station,
Puducherry District.
Crime No.71 of 2022.
2. D.SaurabVerma ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.71
of 2022, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 511 and 384 of IPC,
pending on the file of first respondent, as illegal, unjust in the eyes of law and
pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court is deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of this case.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath
For R1 : Mr.P.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
For R2 : Mr.R.Udhayakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.71 of 2022, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 511 and 384 of IPC, pending on the file of first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a lady aged about 30 years, hails from Madhya Pradesh and the defacto complainant is working as Inspector in GST Central Excise Commissionerate. The defacto complainant and the petitioner got acquaintance with each other through a Matrimonial Website. Subsequently, they used to chat through Whatsapp. While so, the petitioner gave love proposal to the defacto complainant and the same was refused by the defacto complainant. However, the petitioner used to continuously torture the defacto complainant and she also threatened him that she will commit suicide. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 448, 511 and 384 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard Mr.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Balamurugane, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022 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.71 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn To
1. The Inspector of Police, E2 Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.13164 of 2022 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7