Madras High Court
Mookkaiya vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 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.2585 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1931 of 2022
Mookkaiya ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
Athoor Police Station,
Thoothukudi District
2. Krishnakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 228 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector
of Police, Athoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Pandiyaraj
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. 228 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Athoor Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working in
Electricity Department and he tries to encroach the second respondent's
property, due to which a civil suit in O.S. No.82 of 2019 is pending on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur and the same is pending. While the suit
is pending, on 04.04.2020 the petitioner trespassed into the second respondent's
property with his men and cut down the trees situated in the second
respondent place. When the same was questioned, the petitioner abused the
second respondent in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.
Hence the second respondent has lodged a compliant before the first respondent
and the first respondent issued CSR No.26 of 2020. On 17.05.2020 the
petitioner came to the place of the second respondent with aruval and scolded
him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Since the first
respondent did not take any steps the second respondent filed complaint before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur in Crl.M.P.No.1769 of 2020 and the
learned Judicial Magistrate directed the first respondent police to enquire the
matter. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
in Crime No. 228 of 2020 for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC 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 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
"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 statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for the High Court to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
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."
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
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
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Athoor Police Station,
Thoothukudi 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.2585 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2585 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1931 of 2022
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
