Madras High Court
Murugaiah Pandian vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 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.10198 of 2020
Murugaiah Pandian ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
(Cr.No.70 of 2010) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Sivanammal ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records of FIR in Cr.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent
and to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.P.Deepak
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Cr.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The prosecution case is that the land in Survey No.849/1 an extent
of 61 cents in Kadaiyanallur Village belongs to the second respondent's
ancestor and she is in possession and enjoyment of the above said land,
while the disputed property sold by Karuppi/3rd accused by impersonation
and by committing forgery in favour of the petitioner/A1 and second
accused by two sale deeds on 27.07.2010. 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 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.70 of 2010 for the offences under Sections
419, 465, 467, 468, 420, and 120(b) of IPC., as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
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 Maharashtra & ors., as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
"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.
6.........
7.........
8........
9. Having heard the learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
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
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
vsd
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10198 of 2020
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
