Madras High Court
P.Varghese vs The State Through on 19 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7173 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4936 of 2022
P.Varghese ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State through
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
2.A.Mokket ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the entire records connected with the case in Crime No.1 of 2020
pending on the file of the First respondent police and quash the same as
illegal in so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 1 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent pledged
his 68.5 grams gold chain with S.P. Net banking company owned by A1 in
pledge No.402 on 14.11.2009 and obtained loan of Rs.60,000/- and in Pledge
No.403 he pledged his chain on the same day and obtained a loan of
Rs.25,000/- When he went to S.P. Net banking to redeem his jewels, he
came to understand that the said S.P.Raja owner of S.P.Net Banking had re-
pledged his jewels with Kosamattam Finance Company and the company
refused to return the jewels. On 07.01.2011 he and some others went to the
Superintendent of Police Office, Theni to lodge complaint. But already an FIR
was registered on the complaint of some others in Crime No.3 of 2011 against
S.P.Raja on the file of the first respondent and thereafter from Muthoot
Finance, Muthoot Fincorp, Sriram Finance where the said S.P.Raja repledged
this customers' jewels but not with Kosamattam company in view of a crimnal
case, and the Kosamattam finance told the authorities and general public that
only after the completion of said criminal case pending between the said
S.P.Raja and the Kosamattam company the jewels will be returned . At this
juncture, on 11.01.2013 when the defacto complainant and others went to
the Kosamattam Regional office to seek return of jewels, they were chases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
out by the company staff there. They they lodged complaint with the first
respondent but no action was taken. But on the basis of the complaint of
S.P.Raja an FIR in Crime No. 18 of 2014 was registered against the
Kosamattam finance on the file of the first respondent police.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is 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 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 step in to
investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.,
wherein it is 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.
19.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Theni District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7173 of 2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
