Madras High Court
Sivakumar vs The State Represented By on 13 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
Sivakumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
the Inspector of Police,
Mahendramangalam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.241 of 2010) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Sivaraj ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.241 of 2010 on the file of
the Inspector of Police, Mahendramangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri
District and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
relating to FIR in Crime No.241 of 2010, on the file of the first respondent
police, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC
and to quash the same.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a
complaint has been given against the petitioner on 20.09.2010 and that despite
the lapse of 12 years, the first respondent Police has not filed the final report
and thereby, he would seek to quash the proceedings.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents
would submit that the incident has taken place on 20.09.2010 and the complaint
has been given to the first respondent Police on the same day. He would submit
that there is no delay and it is not hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C, in view of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2022 Live Law SC 248 – Amritlal
Vs. Shanthilal Soni & Others. He would further submit that the investigation is
pending.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
placed on record.
5.On a perusal of the records, 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 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in the Code.
6.Further, it is seen that the incident had happened on 20.09.2010 and the
complaint has been made on the same day and that there is no delay. However,
taking into consideration the fact that the final report has not been filed so far,
this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent Police to complete the
investigation and to file a final report as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
Dua/Nr
7.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
13.04.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Dua/Nr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mahendramangalam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.8426 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
