Madras High Court
Parameshwari vs The State Represented By on 25 February, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3881 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.2833 of 2022
1. Parameshwari
2. A.Ramya ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police
Seithur Rural Police station
Virudhunagar District
2. Mariammal ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the First Information
Report in Crime No.185/2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police and
quash the same as against the petitioners herein.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings inCrime No.
185/2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is alleged in the First Information Report that 22 years back, the
house site being owned to one Chellathai, who is none other than the mother
of the 1st petitioner herein, was purchased by the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant, whereas, no registration was effected and subsequently, the
house, which was constructed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and
the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and her son one Muneeswaran have
been residing there and the said Chellathai died and thereafter, the 2 nd
respondent/defacto complainant was asked to vacated the premises, since no
registration of sale was done and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was
asked to give a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- for registering the sale deed by the 1st
petitioner herein and on believing the version of the 1st petitioner herein, the
2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave the said amount to the 1 st petitioner,
whereas the 1st petitioner purposefully delayed to execute the sale deed and
thereby, there was a commotion between the 1 st petitioner and the 2nd
petitioner/defacto complainant and in the result, on 08.12.2021 at about 9.30
a.m., the petitioners herein abused the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant
and during that time the son of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant one
Muneeswaran got angry on the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in respect
of non-registration of any sale deed and while so, the petitioners herein
abused the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and her son and they pushed
them down and therebym the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant got pain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and subsequently, again the petitioners herein threatened the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant with dire consequences and based on the
complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the 1st respondent
police have registered the case U/s.294(b), 323, 506(i) of IP in Crime No.
185/2021.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.
25.02.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police
Seithur Rural Police station
Virudhunagar District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3881 of 2022
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
