Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Keerthisharma @ Kiruthiksharma vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 8508 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8508 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2022

Madras High Court
Keerthisharma @ Kiruthiksharma vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 April, 2022
                                                                           Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 22.04.2022

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022

                     1.Keerthisharma @ Kiruthiksharma
                     2.Saritha
                     3.Ranjith                                     ... Petitioners/Accused

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       B-2 Bazaar Police Station,
                       Ramanathapuram.
                       (Crime No.468 of 2021)                ... 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Shekfarith                            ... 2nd Respondent/
                                                                    Defacto Complainant


                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
                     call for the records relating to the impugned F.I.R in Crime No.468
                     of 2021, dated 30.10.2021 on the file of the first respondent police
                     and quash the same.


                                  For Petitioners       : Mr.R.Venkatesh


                                  For R – 1             : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl. Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022



                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R

in Crime No.468 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent as

against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.2021 at about

10.45 a.m., due to the dispute with regard to the breaking of the

pipe, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant by stone and

pushed the defacto complainant's mother. Hence, the second

respondent lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said

complaint, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.468

of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(i) of

I.P.C r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

4. 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

contain all facts. Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022

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.

5. 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 has 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)No.5741 of 2022

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........

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022

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."

6. 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 first respondent is directed

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022

to complete the investigation and file a final report before the

concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file

a quash petition on the compromise entered between the parties.

22.04.2022 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, B-2 Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5741 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps

Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5741 of 2022

22.04.2022

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter