Madras High Court
C.Murugan @ Thavalai Murugan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
1.C.Murugan @ Thavalai Murugan
2.N.Ramar @ Ration Kadai Ramar
3.M.Selvakumar @ Eliyan Magan Moothavan
4.C.Madhivanan
5.C.Karuppiah ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
Vs.
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Perungudi Police Station,
Madurai District.
(In Cr.No.102 of 2021) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.R.Bhuvaneshwari ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in
Crime No.102 of 2021 pending on the file of the first respondent police and
quash the same as illegal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.K.Manimaran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.102 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2.Though the petitioners and the second respondent have already
filed a joint compromise memo, dated 04.06.2021, they have failed to
appear before this Court and the petition is pending for the past one year.
Even today, the petitioners and the second respondent have not appeared
before this Court.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed into the
defacto complainant's house and attacked the defacto complainant's son and
also caused injuries. Therefore, the present complaint came to be registered
against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
4.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.102 of 2021 was registered against the
petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324, 506(ii)
of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the
investigation is completed and the respondent police are about to file the
final report before the concerned court.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegation as against the petitioner, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in the Code.
8.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
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.7833 of 2021
9.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 petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh quash
petition on the ground of joint compromise memo.
27.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
vsd
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Perungudi 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.7833 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
vsd
Crl.O.P(MD)No.7833 of 2021
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
