Madras High Court
Ganesan vs State Represented By on 25 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
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.4997 of 2020
1.Ganesan
2.Pandidurai
3.Kumaresan @ Muniyandi Pandi
4.Prabhu @ Manikandan
5.Prakash ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sellur Police Station,
Madurai District.
Crime No.225 of 2020 ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Kottaisamy ...2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying
to call for the records in connection with Crime No.225 of 2020 pending on the
file of the first respondent police and quash the same insofar as the petitioners
are concerned.
For Petitioners : Ms.A.Banumathy
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Ms.S.Veerapandi Selvaraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No.225 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between
the parties regarding the marriage of the firtst petitioner's daughter, for which,
the petitioners attacked the de-facto complainant and threatened him with dire
consequences. Therefore, the present complaint came to be registered against
the petitioners.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocents 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.225 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 147,
341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC as against the petitioners.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
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.
6.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., 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
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
facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
7.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
vsd
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,
Sellur Police Station,
Madurai 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.4997 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4997 of 2020
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
