Madras High Court
R.Karthick Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 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.2543 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1294 of 2022
R.Karthick Kumar ...Petitioner/
Accused No.4
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City. ...1st Respondent
(Crime No.274 of 2020) Complainant
2.K.Arumugam
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City. ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the FIR in Crime No.274 of 2020 on the file of the
first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioner/Accused
No.4.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the FIR in
Crime No. 274 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that a case in Crime No.274 of
2020, dated 14.03.2020, for the alleged offences under Section 399 of
Indian Penal Code had been registered as against the petitioner and five
other accused persons on the basis of the complaint (Suo-moto) lodged
by the second respondent herein. The alleged occurrence took place on
14.03.2020 and the case was registered on the same day. Totally six
named accused persons involved in the criminal case. In which, the
petitioner is arrayed as A4. The allegations found in the FIR is that under
the secret information, the de-facto complainant (Sub-Inspector) along
with other police officials went to the Tennis club, Jeeva Nagar 1 st Street,
Jaihindpuram, Madurai, at that time the A1 to A6 stood there at 14.30
hours. On conducting investigation to the accused persons, it was
known that all the accused persons had pre-planned and stood at that
place in order to prepare to commit dacoity. Further, the A1 had given
voluntary confession before the police officials about the entire facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
Therefore, the above said case was registered as against the petitioner
and other accused persons.
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. 274 of 2020 for the offences under Section
399 of IPC.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is pending.
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 commission of cognizable offence and as such this
Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
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."
8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
stands dismissed. However, the second respondent 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
copy of this Order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
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,
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2543 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
