Madras High Court
Bharanidharan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ... on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1533 and 1909 of 2022
1.Bharanidharan
2.Dhinakaran
3.Uma Maheswari ...Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
(FIR Crime No.13 of 2019) ...1st Respondent
2.Sivaraman ...2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for entire records and quash the FIR as against the
petitioner concerned in Crime No.13/2019, dated 05.09.2019, on the file
of the respondent police under Sections 147, 148, 441, 465, 467, 468,
420 and 120(B) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 13 of 2019 on the file of the respondent
police.
2.The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 out of six
accused in Crime No.13 of 2019, registered for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 441, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 120(B) of I.P.C alleging
that the petitioners were fabricated the signature of the defacto
complainant namely, the second respondent herein and executed the lease
deed along with other documents. There are serious allegations as
against the petitioners to attract the offences as stated above.
3.The grounds raised by the petitioners is that the second
respondent are brothers and sisters and there is a civil dispute in respect
of the joint property comprised in Survey No.120/11. Further, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
independent right or title to the second respondent to the said property
and they were issued joint patta. Therefore, no offence has been made
out as against the petitioner.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
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 police is directed to
complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned
Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
07.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lr
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,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2557 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
