Madras High Court
G.K.Babu vs State By on 23 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:23.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.3566 of 2020
G.K.Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kancheepuram District.
2. M.Kumaresan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime
No.1 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Crime
Branch, Kancheepuram District against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 1/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1 of
2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch,
Kancheepuram District.
2.1. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant
herein has preferred a report jointly signed by himself and his friend
Duraisamy before the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District
vide proceedings No.K.2/1447/24518/2019 and the proceedings initiated
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, vide
Na.Ka.161/K.2/DSP/DCB/KPM 2019 and forward to the Inspector of
Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District and he registered
the same as stated above.
2.2. According to FIR the de facto complainant and Duraisamy
are the owners of Agricultural land to an extent of 23 acres 46 cents at
Mullikulathur Village, Tirukazhukundram Taluk. Further, according to
FIR they purchased the land during 1994-95. Patta stand in the name of
de facto complainant and Duraisamy as per the sale deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 2/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
2.3. Both de facto complainant and Duraisamy decided to
dispose of the lands during 2013 and it is alleged that this petitioner is
said to have approached them and agreed to purchase the lands at a cost
of R.67,50,000/- per acre.(67,500/- per cent) and as if the petitioner
assured that he would purchase the entire land within three months.
According to them there was no written agreement. Further, according to
FIR this petitioner was unable to purchase the lands within the stipulated
time and he has introduced one V.M.Kannappan a partner of BLB
Estates Pvt. Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai and inturn, the said Kannappan is
said to have assured that he would sell the lands within 9 months. The
layout was formed by this petitioner according to the de facto
complainant without his knowledge and also the approval from the
concerned authority was also obtained without their consent.
2.4. Further it is alleged that the said Kannappan is said to have
informed the de facto complainant that he has paid huge amount to the
petitioner under the impression the de facto complainant knew about the
transaction. The de facto complainant decided to go ahead with that
project with the help of this petitioner and Kannappan with reluctance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 3/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
Thereafter, it seems that BLB Estates Pvt.Ltd., sold 209 plots (roughly
3,50,000 sq.ft.) uptoo July 2016 and thereafter they were not able to
dispose of the plots and they quit this project. Thereafter the petitioner
himself voluntarily agreed to purchase the remaining plots and in that
process he has issued 16 post dated cheques to a tune of Rs.8 Crores for
the sale consideration and one way or other he did not allow the de facto
complainant and his friend to present the cheque in the respective dates
and thereby he has committed breach of trust. In the month of December
2018, the petitioner started constructing a school in the plot of one
Jeyalakshmi, wife of the de facto complainant without the knowledge and
consent and again the petitioner has given a false promise. Further, it is
alleged that one Raghavasimman is said to have deposited Rs.10,20,000/-
in the 1st week of July 2019 in the account of Duraisamy in connection
with the purchase of his plot No.65 by way of forgery and fabrication of
documents. Thereafter, the de facto complainant came to know that the
petitioner has forged the signature of Duraisamy, Kannan and others in
this transaction. On 30.08.2019 it is alleged that the de facto complainant
and his son, C.K.Kannan have approached the petitioner and directed not
to construct further and at that time it is alleged that the petitioner used
vile language and criminally intimidated them and threatened them to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 4/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
hand over the lands to him. Hence the complaint.
3. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under
Sections 465, 468, 471,406 and 420 IPC. That apart, the grounds raised
by the petitioner are mixed question of facts, which has to be investigated
in depth and it cannot be considered in the quash petition. 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 investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in
to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in the Code.
4. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 5/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 6/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 7/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
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."
5. 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, considering the crime is of the year
2020, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in
Crime No.1 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of eight months
from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction
Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
23.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
nti/ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 8/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 9/10
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
nti/ata
Crl.O.P.No.6460 of 2020
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page : 10/10
