B.Badha Maruthi vs The State Rep.By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11902 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11902 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022

Madras High Court

B.Badha Maruthi vs The State Rep.By on 5 July, 2022

                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 05.07.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020
                                              and Crl.M.P.No.8608 of 2020

                     B.Badha Maruthi                                           ...Petitioner

                                                         -Vs-

                     1.The State Rep.by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station,
                     Chennai.
                     (Crime No.792 of 2019)

                     2.Kornelia Wegener                                       ... Respondents



                     Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
                     Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.792 of 2019 on
                     the file of the Inspector of Police, E4, Abiramapuram Police Station,
                     Chennai and quash the same.


                                     For Petitioners   : No appearance

                                     For R1            : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                     For R2            : No appearance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R.in Crime No.792 of

2019 on the file of the first respondent police for the alleged offences

under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner produced fake

certificate, such as, experience certificate issued by Wirecard India

Private Limited, Income Tax returns and Bank Statements, to obtain

VISA through an agent, who is arrayed as A2. The grounds raised by the

petitioner to quash the FIR in Crime No.792 of 2019 is that the petitioner

approached the second accused for obtaining VISA to Germany. On the

said request, the second accused only prepared documents and produced

them before the German Council. Therefore, the petitioner never

produced any documents and hence no offence is made out by the

petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed

any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any basis, the first

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

Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 792 of 2019 for the

offences under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are specific

allegation as against the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the records, produced by the learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side), reveals that all the documents were produced

by the petitioner through the second accused. Therefore, there are

specific allegations as against the petitioner.

6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are

specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, which

has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia

and it need not contain all facts and 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

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

Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

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 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 in the case of 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

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

Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

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. ......................

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

Crl.O.P.No.20471 of 2020

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to

complete the investigation in Crime No.792 of 2019 and file a final

report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.07.2022

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp

1.The Inspector of Police, E-4, Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai.