Madras High Court
R.Ramesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1961 of 2022
R.Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
Vathalai Police Station
Trichy District
2. Muthukrishnan
Irrigation Inspector, PWD
Mukkombu, Melanai, Trichy ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.232 of 2018 on the file of the first
respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner/second accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.232 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant herein who
is the second respondent gave a complaint on 29.12.2018 to the first
respondent as if he is the officer of the PWD and on 29.12.2018 at about 3.00
am., when he was conducting inspection along with police officials found some
persons near Thudaiyar bus stop in Kollidam river bed at about 4.30 a.m.,
removing sand and storing it in the river back and on seeing him, all the persons
ran away from the scene of occurrence except one Vijayakumar and he gave
confession about the other accused and also informed that with the help of
Rajkumar's vehicle they are doing the business and he was also arrested.
With the above allegations, 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. 238 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379 of IPC and
Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act) as
against the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is going on and the petitioner is having five similar previous cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
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."
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.
08.02.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Vathalai Police Station
Trichy 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.2641 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2641 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1961 of 2022
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
