Madras High Court
L.Venkatraman vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2022
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No4435 of 2022
1.L.Venkatraman
2. L.Saravanan ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.31 of 2022)
2. T.Satheeshkumar,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Street,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to
call for the records in pursuant to the FIR in Cr.No.31 of 2022 pending
on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same and pass
such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
R1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 31 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.01.2022 at about 09.00am,
when the second respondent/defact complainant along with other police
officials were in patrolling duty, intercepted the vehicle of the petitioners
and enquired them. Due to that, the accused persons shouted and abused
the police officials and deter them from doing their work. On search, the
police officials found that the accused persons were in possession of
banned tobacco products in the dicky of the vehicle. In that regard a case
in Crime No.031 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners under
Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC, Section 7(1), 24(1) of Cigarette and
other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent 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. 31 of 2022 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC, Section 7(1), 24(1) of Cigarette and
other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost 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
allegations as against the petitioners, which have 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
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., 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
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 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
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 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.
06.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO
1. The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.31 of 2022)
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD). No.6389 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)No.4435 of 2022
Date : 06/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
