Madras High Court
Soori @ Soorianarayananmoorthy vs The State on 14 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.No. 6183 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 14.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6183 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No.4606 of 2017
Soori @ Soorianarayananmoorthy ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State, Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Orlampet Police Station,
Pudhcherri,
(Crime No. 595 of 2011)
2. A. Antony Samy ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in Crime No. 595 of 2011 on the file of the first
respondent herein and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.I.Paul Noble Deva Kumar
For K.Sathiya
For R1 : Mr.Bharath Chakaravarthy
Public Prosecutor,
Pondicherry.
1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 6183 of 2017
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.595 of 2011
registered against the petitioner for offences under sections 409, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel
for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
second respondent/de-facto complainant had given a complaint against this
petitioner before the police in respect of which, a case in Orlampet Police
Station, Pudhucherry, in Crime No.595 of 2011 was registered on 22.12.2011
for offences under Sections 409, 468, 471, and 420 IPC.
4. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)
appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that charge sheet has been filed in
C.C.No.11 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pondicherry.
5. This Court perused the FIR in Crime No.595 of 2011 relates to an
2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 6183 of 2017
incident that took place on 22.12.2011, the police registered a case for
offences under Sections 409, 468, 471, and 420 IPC. Whereas, in this
complaint, the de-facto complainant alleged that the accused had forged the
fake certificate and cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of
Rs.56,50,000/-.
6. That apart, this Court cannot go into disputed question of facts in a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp [1] SCC 335 has laid down
the guidelines for quashing an FIR. The complaint in Crime No.595 of 2011
discloses the commission of cognizable offence and therefore, this Court cannot
quash the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid judgment. Hence, this petition is dismissed, with liberty to the
petitioner, to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.07.2021
Index : yes/no
msm
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No. 6183 of 2017
msm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Orlampet Police Station,
Pudhcherri,
(Crime No. 595 of 2011)
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6183 of 2017
14.07.2021
4 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
