Madras High Court
C. Praveen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 July, 2021
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
and Crl.MP.No. 5108 of 2017
C. Praveen ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
T.P. Chathram Police Station,
Chennai.
2. S. Vazgaval Karthikeyan ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for
the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.224 of 2017 on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same insofar as the case against the
petitioner/2nd accused is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M. Appaji
For R-1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
Government Advocate
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 224 of 2017
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420 and
406 IPC, as against the petitioner.
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.224 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 406
and 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 has only
to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.K.M. Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
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 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.
......................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
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. 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. 224
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
of 2017 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already
filed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
29.07.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
msm
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
T.P. Chathram Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J
msm
CRL.O.P.No. 7024 of 2017
and Crl.MP.No. 5108 of 2017
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
