Madras High Court
Haribabu vs The State Rep By on 9 June, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.10034 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.10034 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.6127 of 2021
1.Haribabu
2.Vasanthakumar
3.Sivaraj
4.Vadivel @ Mark Gopal
5.Kumaresan ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State Rep by.
Inspector of Police,
Ambur Town Police Station,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.92 of 2021).
2. Saraswathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.92 of 2021,
dated 18.02.2021 as far as the petitioner are concerned, pending on the file
of the 1st respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
(for R-1)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.92 of
2021 registered by the first respondent police for offence under Sections
147, 148, 120(B), 294(B), 403, 441, 442, 448 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against
the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any
offences as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.92 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 120(B), 294(B), 403, 441, 442, 448 and 506(ii) of
IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.92 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021. He would further submit that the counter
case filed by the petitioners was registered in Crime No.93 of 2021 for the
offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, 473, 475,
and 476 of IPC as against the de-facto complainant and two others.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have
only to file final report.
4. Heard K.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be
investigated in depth. Further, the FIR as against the petitioners 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 offences 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.10034 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
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 allegations made therein appear
to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
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 filed as against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, it
is seen that the case in Crime No.93 of 2021 was also registered as against
the de-facto complainant and two others, based on the complaint given by
the petitioners herein. Therefore, this court is inclined to direct the first
respondent to complete the investigation both in Crime Nos.92 and 93 of
2021 and file a final report, within a period of three months 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
Index:Yes/no
Speaking/Non speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Ambur Town Police Station,
Vellore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
CRL.O.P.No.10034 of 2021
09.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
