Karuppasamy @ K.K vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 7697 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7697 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Karuppasamy @ K.K vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2022

                                                             1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 12.04.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6773 of 2022
                                                          and
                                             Crl.M.P(MD) No.4677 of 2022

                     1.Karuppasamy @ K.K
                     2.Deepak Kumar
                     3.Chelladurai
                     4.Sathiyaraj
                     5.Karuppasamy
                     6.Ramesh @ Paranthaman
                     7.Kannan
                     8.Gurusamy @ Idli Gurusamy
                     9.Gokula Prabu
                     10.Minor.Hari
                     (Rep. by his father natural guardian
                     Selvakumar)                                            ...Petitioners


                                                                 Vs.

                     1. State Represented by
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Sendhmaram Police Station,
                        Tenkasi District.
                        (Crime No.339/2021)

                     2. Swarnam                                                   ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No. 339 of 2021 dated 18.10.2021
                     on the file of Inspector of Police, Sendhamaram, Tenkasi district and quash
                     the same as against the petitioner's.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                 2

                                        For Petitioners     : Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya

                                        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. 339 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners along with other

accused persons conspired together and made a plan to destroy the trees in

the filed owned by the defacto complainant, hence the present case came to

be registered.

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. He would further submit that already civil dispute

is pending between the parties and the tenth respondent herein is the minor

school going boy studying 10 th standard and further there is a delay in the

lodgement of complaint.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

already this Court has ordered transfer of investigation from the file of the

first respondent to the file of the Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Station by an order dated 07.02.2022 in Crl.O.P(MD) No.1631 of 2022 and

the investigation is still pending on the file of the Inspector of Police,

Sankarankovil Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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 petitioners, 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., where

in it is held 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police

Station, Tenkasi District 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. While conducting investigation the

petitioners are at liberty to establish their involvement in this crime before the

investigating officer and the investigating officer is directed to consider the

same and file the final report accordingly. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.04.2022

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav