Makendrakumar vs The State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 11504 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11504 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2021

Madras High Court

Makendrakumar vs The State Represented By on 9 June, 2021

                                                                             CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 09.06.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                CRL.O.P.No. 7746 of 2021
                                               and Crl.MP.No.5107 of 2021

                 Makendrakumar
                 S/o.Jagathdhaji,
                 Mariyamman Kovil Street,
                 Shevapet,
                 Salem - 636 002.                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.
                 The State represented by
                 The Inspector of Police,
                 Annadanapatty Police Station,
                 Salem.
                 Cr.No.389 of 2018.                                                 ... Respondent

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
                 praying to call for records relating tot he First Information Report in Crime
                 No.389 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent police and to quash the same.
                                         For Petitioner     : Mr.R.Nandhakumar

                                         For Respondent     : Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                 Page 1 of 8
                                                                            CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.389 of 2018

registered by the first respondent police for offences under Section 77 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 6 &

24 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, as against the

petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution the on 20.06.2018, while the

respondent police were patrolling, the petitioner and other accused were found

in possession of banned tobacco products. Hence they registered the case in

Crime No.389 of 2018 as against the petitioner and four others.

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. Without any base, the respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.389 of 2018 for the offences under Section 77

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and

Sections 6 & 24 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, as

against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

now the investigation in Crime No.389 of 2018 on the file of the respondent

police has been transfered to the Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai for

further investigation.

5. Heard Mr.R.Nandhakumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the 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 deapth. 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/

CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

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/

CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

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/

CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021

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 2018,

the Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai is directed to complete the

investigation in Crime No.389 of 2018 and file a final report within a period

of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the

jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.06.2021 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRL.O.P.No.7746 of 2021