Madras High Court
G.Selvarani vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4232 of 2022
G.Selvarani ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
B4- Keeraithurai Police Station(L&O)
Madurai City Police
Madurai
2. S.Selvi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.400 of 2021 dated
23.06.2021 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as
illegal insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.400 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that five years ago the
petitioner/accused herein allegedly approached the second respondent/defacto
complainant and luring the second respondent/defacto complainant that she
was being the member of an organization in New Delhi to mobilize loans and if
the second respondent/defacto complainant pays Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/-
she would get loans to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively.
Further the second respondent alleged in the First Information Report that
besides her own money she mobilized money from various women members and
also borrowed some amount from other sources and handed Rs.1,88,500/- to the
petitioner for mobilizing loan for women members and further stated that the
petitioner delayed in arranging loan as against it was allegedly assured by her.
Then when the second respondent with the other women members finally
approached the petitioner/accused on 06.02.2021 for return of money handed
her over, the petitioner started challenging” You do whatever you can”. With the
above allegations, the respondent police registered the above FIR.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is completed and the respondent police are about to file the final
report before the concerned court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR
is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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 also 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 - Sau.
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., wherein it
is held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
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 that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for the High Court to interfere.
6.........
7.........
8........
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
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. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
01.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police
B4- Keeraithurai Police Station(L&O)
Madurai City Police
Madurai
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6084 of 2022
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
