Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.05.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.IlANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.6623 of 2023
T.Kalidass ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Egmore Police Station,
Chennai District.
2.R.Vivekkumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Egmore, Police Station, and Chennai and to quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran for Mr.R.Rajadurai
For R-1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Egmore, Police Station, Chennai and to quash the same.
2. 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. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.266 of 2022 for the offences under Section 420, IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran appearing on behalf of Mr.R.Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
5. 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.
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:-
"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 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023 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.
......................4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
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."
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Egmore, Police Station, Chennai. Accordingly, this 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023 Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.05.2023
gd
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Egmore Police Station,
Chennai District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
G.K.IlANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gd
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
04.05.2023
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis