Ramesh vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 1950 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1950 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2022

Madras High Court

Ramesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 February, 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.2485 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1939 of 2022
1. Ramesh
2. Ramar @ Jayaraman
3. Kavitha
4. Karupayei
... Petitioners
Vs

1. The Inspector of Police
Aaviyur Police Station
Virudhunagar District

2. K.Veeranan
The Sub Inspector of Police
Aaviyur Police Station
Virudhunagar District

3. Sugapriya ...
Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for
the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Jeyaram Sidharth

For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public
Prosecutor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in Crime No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.01.2022 due to land dispute the

petitioners were attacked the second respondent by using filthy language.

Subsequently, she was admitted in hospital and complaint was also made. In

that regard a case in Crime No.04 of 2022 was registered against the

petitioners under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and 4 of TNPWH

Act.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police

registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2022 for the offences under Sections

447, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and 4 of TNPWH Act as against the

petitioners.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.02.2022

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1. The Inspector of Police Aaviyur Police Station Virudhunagar District

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis