Madras High Court
Indrani @ Indra vs The State Represented By on 25 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
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.7404 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.5048 of 2022
1.Indrani @ Indra
2.Rajendran
3.Rajalakshmi ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thenkarai Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.25 of 2022)
2. Sarojini ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to
call for the records of FIR in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of the
Respondent No.1 Police station and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Maharaja
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.25 of 2022, on the file of the Respondent No.1 Police station.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2022, the defacto
complainant had lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police station
wherein, she stated that she is residing at the above said address. Further
due to the defacto complainant's husband job, the defacto complainant and
her family members were temporarily residing at K.K.Nagar, Madurai. Further
the defacto complainant is having one elder son, namely, Muthu Kannan, aged
about 10 years and one younger daughter, namely, Mahalakshmi, aged about
8 years. While the matter is being so, on 15.01.2022, the defacto
complainant went to her father's house which is situated at Kamatchiyamman
Kovil Street, Thenkarai, Periyakulam, Theni. On that date, at about 10.30
a.m., the defacto complainant's uncle, namely, Rasaiya's son Bala Murugan
and daughter, Indrani @ Indra came to the defacto complainant's father
Chellappa House and at the time due to civil dispute, there was a wordy
quarrel arose between them and thereby, they were said to be abused with
filthy language. Thereafter, while the defacto complainant questioned the
same, at the time the petitioners were said to have abused the defacto
complainant and lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police Station
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
and a case has been registered in Crime No.25 of 2022 for the alleged offence
under Sections 294(b) & 323 of IPC on 19.01.2022 against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that for the
very same occurrence there was a counter complaint given by the petitioner
and the same was registered in Crime No.24 of 2022 for the offence under
Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, as against the second respondent and others.
Due to previous enmity, the complaint has been filed as against the
petitioners. In fact, on the complaint lodged by the petitioners already there
was an FIR pending against the second respondent and others.
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
allegations as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further
the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all the facts. Further, it
cannot be quashed at the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such, this Court cannot
interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to
investigation, 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:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
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."
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 first respondent is directed to follow the procedure
laid down under the Police Standing Order 588 and complete the investigation
and file a final report in Crime No.25 of 2022 within a period of twelve weeks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mga
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thenkarai Police Station,
Theni District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7404 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
mga
Crl.O.P(MD) No.7404 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.5048 of 2022
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
