Madras High Court
Ramkumar @ Kumar Pandian vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 29 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.5552 of 2022
Ramkumar @ Kumar Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Sub Inspector of Police
Sivagiri Police Station
Tenkasi District
2. Sheik Mydeen ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in Crime No.
89 of 2022 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Antoprince
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 89 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant was
coming in the two wheeler the accused persons said to have restrained him
used filthy language, assaulted him with aruval, criminally intimidated him and
also said to have extorted Rs.2000/-, cell phone and the defacto complainant's
Bajaj Discover Bike bearing Reg.No.TN 76 D 9139. With the above allegations,
the respondent police registered the above FIR.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the
petitioner is involved in more than 20 previous cases and he was detained under
Act. 14 of 1982.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
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., wherein it
is held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
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 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.8222 of 2022
8. Since the petitioner was detained under Act. 14 of 1982, he is not
entitled for any relief to quash the First Information Report. In view of the above
discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence
this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police
Sivagiri Police Station
Tenkasi 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.8222 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8222 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.5552 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
