Madras High Court
G.Rajendhran vs The State Represented By on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.421 of 2022
1.G.Rajendhran
2.G.R.Ananthapadmanapan
3.G.R.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Anti-Land Grabbing Cell,
District Crime Branch,
Thoothukudi District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Vellaisamy ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in Crime No.26 of 2021, dated 31.08.2021, on
the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as
against the petitioners concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muralikumar
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.S.Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.26 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners
fraudulently obtained the lands belonging to the defacto
complainant and his brother Katturaja, measuring an extent of 3.90
acres. Further, it is also alleged in the complaint that the fifth
accused had forged the Aadhar card of both the defacto complainant
and his brother Katturaja by defacing their image with the image of
the sixth and seventh accused in ID proofs and with that forged ID
proofs, the fifth accused registered a power of attorney bearing
Document No.1233 of 2020, dated 21.08.2020, in his favour by
impersonating the sixth and seventh accused as defacto
complainant and his brother. Subsequently, the fifth accused
executed a sale deed in Document No.1318 of 2020, dated
02.09.2020 in favour of the petitioners' Company. For the execution
of power of attorney, dated 21.08.2020, one Kanagaraj, the eighth
accused and one Thangavel Nadar, the ninth accused had witnessed
it and for the sale deed, dated 02.09.2020, one Balu, the tenth
accused and one Manikandan, the eleventh accused had witnessed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
it. It is also alleged in the complaint that the subject fraudulent sale
was executed by the fifth accused conspiring with one Perumal, the
fourth accused, the authorized signatory of the petitioner's
Company under the instructions of the present petitioners. Hence,
the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the defacto complainant has deliberately twisted the
facts and gave a false complaint 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
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."
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. However, the respondent police is
directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before
the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.02.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2022
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,
Anti-Land Grabbing Cell,
District Crime Branch,
Thoothukudi 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.542 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.542 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
