Madras High Court
Ravichandran vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 July, 2021
1 Crl.O.P.No.27858 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 27858 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No. 15858 of 2017
Ravichandran ...Petitioner/A2
Versus
1. The Inspector of Police,
Perundurai Police Station,
Perundurai, Erode District.
(Cr.No. 679 of 2017)
2. Duraisamy ...Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.
679 of 2017 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G. Senthil Kumar
For R1 : Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan
Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
For R2 : Mr.A. Indhumathi
----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.O.P.No.27858 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.679 of
2017 registered by the first respondent police for an offences under
Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 of IPC as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the complaint was given by one
M/s.Sri Karthiga Traders/de-facto complainant against the petitioner and
other accused. The petitioner herein conspired with A1, collected money
from various customers of the said M/s.Sri Karthiga Traders a sum of
Rs.38,00,000/- swindled by way of cash and he has not repaid the trading
amount for the stocks taken by A1 from three shops. Based on the
complaint given by the second respondent herein, the first respondent
police registered a case in Crime No.679 of 2017 for offences under
Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 of IPC on 21.11.2017. Hence the petitioner
has come forward to quash the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 and he never worked under
M/s.Sri Karthiga Traders. A2 was working in the said company and he
collected money from various customers and deposited the same. This
petitioner herein has not received any amount from the customers.
Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime
No.679 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 of
IPC as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner conspired
with other accused and swindled of a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- from various
customers and he has not repaid the trading amount for the stocks taken by
A1 and investigation has been completed and the respondent police have
only to file final report. He vehemently opposed for quashing the
proceedings FIR in Crime No.679 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. Heard Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and
Mrs.A. Indhumathi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
and perused the materials placed on record.
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.
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 v. The State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the
High Court to quash the same. It is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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/
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. However, considering the crime is of the year
2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in
Crime No.679 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of two
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.
02.07.2021
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order:Yes
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Perundurai Police Station, Perundurai,
Erode District. (Cr.No. 679 of 2017)
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No. 27858 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No. 15858 of 2017
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
