Madras High Court
J. Malarvizhi vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4861 of 2022
1. J. Malarvizhi
2. J. Induja
3. J.Deepak ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Sivagangai District
2. SA.Ameensha ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records pertaining to the case in Crime No.01 of 2022 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S. Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
No.2 : Mr.R.Selvan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
Crime No.01 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent was
interested in purchasing the land of 2 acres 45 cents comprised in S.No.196/2
situated at Thiruvalur Village, Elayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District while belongs
to one Karunanidhi, husband of the first petitioner herein and the father of
second and third petitioners herein. The second respondent had communicated
with the said Karunanidhi to sell the property to him, meanwhile on 12.11.2014
the said Karnunanidhi died. Thereafter the second respondent approached the
legal heirs of the Karunanidhi , petitioners herein to sell the property to him and
they are willing to sell the property to him. Hence on 15.09.2016 the petitioners
herein created sale deed and in that sale deed the second respondent and the
petitioners signed. In that sale deed page No.8, it it stated that the purchaser
second respondent herein had paid total consideration of Rs.62,50,000/- in a
piecemeal manner to Mr.D.Karunanidhi and vendors, they are admit and
acknowledged. The petitioners further submit that second respondent has
sought for the sale deed or repayment, the accused persons has not paid the
above said payment and the accused have issued receipt in a bond paper dated
15.09.2016, thereafter the petitioners entered into sale agreement with Sigamani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
and Rajapandi for the amount of Rs.36,50,000/- vide document No.842/2017
before the Elayangudi Sub Registrar Office. Further the second respondent
naratted in the complaint that on 16.09.2016 he had spent money Rs.4,36,500/-
through E. Service Centre for registration and has lost the said money. Further
the defacto complainant sought to have cancelled the sale agreement entered
with Sigamani and Rajapandi between the petitioners and take action against the
petitioners, 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.
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
allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
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 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.
18.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Sivagangai District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7073 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4861 of 2022
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
