Madras High Court
Dinakaran vs The State Represented By on 11 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.9974, 11389 & 11499 of 2021
1.Crl.O.P(MD)No.18183 of 2021:-
1.Dinakaran
2.Kaja Mayideen ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
(In Crime No.333 of 2021). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.M.Pandiyan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the case registered in First
Information Report in Crime No.333 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioners
concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Lawrance
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
2.Crl.O.P(MD)No.20165 of 2021:-
Pandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
(In Crime No.334 of 2021). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Kajamaideen ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.334 of 2021
pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the
same against the petitioner alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.AK.Azagarsami
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
3.Crl.O.P(MD)No.20276 of 2021:-
Pandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
(In Crime No.335 of 2021). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Mini ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.335 of 2021
pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the
same against the petitioner alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.AK.Azagarsami
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petition have been filed to quash the
FIR in Crime Nos.333, 334 and 335 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P(MD)No.18183 of
2021 is as follows:-
2.1.On 30.10.2021, at about 02.30 pm., when the defacto
complainant, who is an Advocate practising at Uthamapalayam
Court, and his friends went to a Hotel namely Kerala Hotel which is
situated at Thammanampatti, Gudalur, Theni District for taking
lunch, the defacto complainant had questioned the services
rendered by the female hotel staff and at that time, the petitioners
and others were having their lunch in the adjacent table of the hotel
and it is further alleged that when the second respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
questioned the deficiency in services by the female staff of the
hotel, the petitioners have slapped the second respondent and at
that time, other accused have alleged to have threatened him with
dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the
second respondent, F.I.R has been registered against the petitioners
in Crime No.333 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147,
294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P(MD)No.20165 of
2021 is as follows:-
3.1. On 30.10.2021, at about 03.00 pm., the petitioner
pushed down the hotel owner one Mini and used abusive language
and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant and
others, for which the petitioner along with other accused beaten the
defacto complainant and criminally intimidated him. On the basis of
the complaint lodged by the second respondent, F.I.R has been
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.334 of 2021 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C.
4. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P(MD)No.20276 of
2021 is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
4.1. On 30.10.2021, at about 03.00 pm., the petitioner and
other accused were having lunch at defacto complainant Mini's
hotel, they used abusive language against the defacto complainant
and others. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner in
Crime No.335 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and
506(i) of I.P.C.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is a case and
case in counter and FIRs have been registered against the
petitioners and the defacto complainant in Crime Nos.333, 334 and
335 of 2021 and it is pending on the file of the first respondent for
investigation.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
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.
6. 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 the Honourable Supreme Court of
India 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
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."
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
FIRs in Crime Nos.333, 334 and 335 of 2021. Accordingly, these
Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. However, the first
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime
Nos.333, 334 and 335 of 2021, after following the Police Standing
Orders for case and counter case and file final reports within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
11.04.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
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,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.18183, 20165 & 20276 of 2021
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
