Madras High Court
Dinesh vs The State Represented By Its on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 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.2555 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1439 and 1905 of 2022
Dinesh ...Petitioner/
Accused No.2
Vs.
1.The State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Ayyempettai Police Station,
Thanjavur District. ...1st Respondent/
(Crime No.991 of 2021) Complainant
2.Pushpanathan ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report
in Crime No.991 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police and
quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunraj
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 991 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had
conducted marriage for one of his daughters on September 2021. As
wedding gift, Poonkodi wife of Kannan/accused No.1 presented a wet
grinder to the above mentioned marriage. But, after a month of marriage,
Poonkodi demanded to return the said grinder or cost of the same. The
defacto complainant did not repay the amount to Poonkodi. With the
above allegation, 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. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No. 991 of 2021 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323 and 307 of IPC as against the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
investigation is completed and the respondent police are about to file the
final report within a period twelve weeks.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
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 file the
final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a 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,
Ayyempettai Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2555 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
