Madras High Court
P.Sekar @ Tokker vs The State Represented By on 25 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6340 of 2021
1.P.Sekar @ Tokker
2.M.Ranjith @ Ranjithkumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.111 of 2021)
2.Nasurudeen ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.111/2021, on the
file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.M.Ramesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 111 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the
petitioners had pelted stones on the second respondent's Auto, damaged
the front mirror and further, they threatened him with dire consequences.
Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint and the same has been
registered in Crime No.111/2021 on the file of the first respondent.
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. Without any base, the first respondent
police registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 2021 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Maharashtra & ors., 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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."
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.
25.04.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6340 of 2021
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
