Madras High Court
V.S.Karthick vs The State Represented By on 10 June, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
V.S.Karthick ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tiruvannamalai.
(Crime No.15/2019)
2. M/s. National Collateral Management Service Limited,
K.Jayaraman S/o.Shanmugam,
Rep by its Regional Manager,
Office At No.213/I.P,
Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street,
Manapakkam Main Road,
Genugampakkam,
Chennai – 600 122. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. To
call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.15 of 2019 on the file of the
respondent police, to quash the same insofar as it relates to the
petitioner/accused No.1.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
(for R-1)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.15 of 2019
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 406 and
420 of 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.15 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to
file final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
4. Heard Mr.J.Muthukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
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 necessary that a
meticulous analysis of the case should be done
before the Trial to find out whether the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
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 alleged against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
accused are prima facie made out in the
complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be
interdicted."
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
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. The first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.15 of 2019 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.
10.06.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
CRL.O.P.No.10184 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
