Madras High Court
P.Mohandoss vs The State Rep By on 11 June, 2021
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
1. P.Mohandoss
2. M.Jeeva
3. V.Issac
4. T.Anbu ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station,
Ambattur, Chennai.
2. Mr.R.Manikandan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the entire records Cr. No.19 of 2021 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, T16 Nazarathpet Police Station, Chennai and quash all
further proceedings against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Paul Einstein
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.19 of 2021
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 341 and
364(A) of IPC, as against the petitioners.
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is the Driver
of the lorry, which met with an accident with the vehicle of the first petitioner,
in which the petitioners 2 to 4 were also travelling. Therefore, the petitioners
sought money for the damage and the owner gave Rs.2,000/-. However, the
petitioners had taken the lorry forcefully to their place and also demanded
Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the second respondent lodged the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 341
and 364(A) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
5. Heard Mr.G.Paul Einstein, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
6. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, the second respondent is
the driver of the lorry, which met with an accident with the vehicle of the first
petitioner, in which the petitioners 2 to 4 were also travelling. Thereafter, the
petitioners sought money for the damage and therefore the owner gave
Rs.2,000/-. Even then, the petitioners had taken the lorry forcefully to their
place and demanded Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the second respondent lodged the
complaint. 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 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.
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
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
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 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
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
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 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
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
dismissed. However, the first respondent Police is directed to complete the
investigation in Cr.No.19 of 2021 and file final report before the jurisdictional
Magistrate within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
11.06.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
vji / lok
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station,
Ambattur, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vji / lok
Crl. O.P. No.10222 of 2021
11.06.2021
