Madras High Court
M.Thangavel vs The State on 24 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3747 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2732 & 2733 of 2022
1. M.Thangavel
2. V.Gopalsamy
3. K.Lakshmanan
4. A.Saravanan ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4
Vs.
1.The State
represented by the Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.8 of 2021) ..1st Respondent/Complainant
2. D.Parimalam ...2ndRespondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records of the First Information Report in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of
the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
R1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 8 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant viz.,
D.Parimalam, wife of P.Duraisamy is the owner of the property in S.No.636/3,
admeasuring of 3 acres and 2 cents, which includes 4320 sq.feet of house plots
and house available therein, situated Ayyampulli village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul
District, by way of registered sale deed executed on 21.07.1989. The petitioners
created forged sale deed, power deed, lease deed in respect of very same
property with forged signatures of the defacto complainant. The 2nd and 3rd
petitioners are witnesses in those documents and the 4th petitioner is a document
writer. The first petitioner already preferred a civil suit in O.S.No.27 of 2019 on
the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Palani, Dindigul District. When the
defacto complainant queried about execution of those documents, the 1st
petitioner abused her with filthy languages and gave life threat against the
defacto complainant. In that regard, a case in Crime No.08 of 2021 was
registered against the petitioners under Sections 34, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
474 & 506(i) IPC.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 of 2022
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No. 8 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 34, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 474 & 506(i) IPC 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.
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 of 2022
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 stands
dismissed. However, the first 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 petitions are closed.
24.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3747 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul 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.3747 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
PNM
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3747 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2732 & 2733 of 2022
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
