Madras High Court
Mathew K.Cherian vs The State Through on 5 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.771 of 2020
1.Mathew K.Cherian
2.George Thomas ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State through
The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
2.A.Mokket ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call
for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.1 of 2020,
pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as
illegal insofar as it relates to the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Malaikani
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
ORDER
The criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No.1 of 2020 pending on the file of the first respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent pledged
his 68.5 grams of gold chain and another chain with the S.P.Netbanking
Company and obtained Rs.85,000/-. Then, he went to redeem his jewels
from the said company and came to know that one S.P.Raja, who is the
owner of the said company had re-pledged his jewels with the Kosamattam
Finance company and the company refused to return the jewels. Thereafter,
on 07.01.2011, the second respondent and others went to lodge a complaint
and came to know that already a FIR had been registered on the complaint
of some others as against the S.P.Raja in Crime No.3 of 2011. The
Kosamattam company told the authorities and general public that only after
the completion of the said criminal case pending between the said S.P.Raja
and the Kosamattam company the jewels will be returned. Then, the defacto
complainant lodged a complaint, FIR had been registered by the first
respondent as against the Kosamattan finance in Crime No.18 of 2014.
Then, one S.P.Raja filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20307 of 2013, he said in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
the writ petition that he had joined as party and Kosamattam finance
company accepted to have kept all the jewels with them. Therefore, this
Court granted injunction in M.P.No.1 of 2013 and in the final hearing, this
Court directed the defacto complainant herein, to lodge a fresh complaint
before the first respondent. The defacto complainant had lodged a
complaint on 07.01.2020, for which, FIR had been registered in crime No.1
of 2020 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections
10-A and 16 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943 and summons
had been issued by the first respondent on 20.01.2020.
3.On perusal of records, it is revealed that as directed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.20307 of 2013, by order dated 21.11.2019, directed the
victims to lodge a fresh complaint before the District Crime Branch, Theni,
namely, the first respondent herein and directed the first respondent to
register the complaint and complete the investigation and file a final report
within a period of six months. The entire investigation shall be personally
monitored by the Superintendent of Police, Theni District. Accordingly, the
first respondent had registered the FIR and now, the investigation is under
progress in Crime No.1 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 406 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
Section 10-A and 16 (7) of Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, as against
the petitioners and another. Infact, the first respondent already enquired 23
witnesses and recorded their statements. Accordingly, the victims have
pledged their respective jewels and borrowed loan and made similar crime
had been to the second respondent herein as follows:
S.No. NAME PLEDGED LOAN
JEWEL AMOUNT
(Gms) (Rs)
1. Mokkat 93.3 75,000
2. M.Muthu 122.5 1,09,500
3. Ravichandran 44.72 33,200
4. Selvam 13.9 11,000
5. P.Muthu 72.7 49,500
6. Nagadevan 55.56 34,000
7. Muniammal 116.3 1,05,000
8. Sasikaladevi 11.8 9,400
9. Madasamy 411 2,90,000
10. Logamani 493.4 4,11,000
11. Chinnasamy 580.5 5,55,000
12. Muthupandi 23 17,000
13. Arivu 15.3 16,200
14. Gautham 26.7 20,500
15. Palaniammal 67 62,000
16. Palpandi 52.6 40,000
17. Gunasekaran 96.2 36,000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
18. Rasu 437.5 3,50,000
19. Nandhakumar 144 1,05,000
20. O.Sathish 142.1 1,38,000
21. Mohamad Imrankhan 185.6 15,100
22. Thameem Muthar 338.7 1,45,100
23. Haseena Begum 656.7 6,43,000
4.That apart there are more other victims said to have pledged the
jewels with the first accused and same in the custody of the second and third
accused. Therefore, there is a prima facie case made out to register the FIR
for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 10-A and 16
of the Pawn Brokers Act.
5.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., 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
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 set aside the order
passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to
the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
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."
6.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 first 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 closed.
05.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lr
To
1.The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1653 of 2020
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
