Madras High Court
J.Kalaiselvi vs The State Rep. By on 28 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2020
1. J.Kalaiselvi
2. S.Arthi
3. B.Parameswari
4. J.Aruvambal ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Kairalabad (Thelur) Police Station,
Ariyalur District – 621 704
2. Tamilkodi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records culminating in Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of
the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.18 of
2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147,
294(b) 323 and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of The Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2020, the cattle of the
second respondent went to the petitioners' land as such, the petitioners and
other accused persons scolded the second respondent with filthy language and
also threatened her with dire consequently. Further without any occurrence, the
first petitioner's husband got admitted in the Government hospital, Ariyalur, as
if the second respondent and her family members were attacked him. While
being so, on 05.02.2020, when the second respondent was in her house, the
accused persons went to her house and scolded her with filthy language and
also threatened her with dire consequences. They also attacked her on her
stomach and therefore, the second respondent/defacto complainant fell down.
Hence the complainant.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
there are totally five accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
For the very same occurrence, there was a counter complaint lodged before the
first respondent in Crime No.17 of 2020 and after completion of investigation,
the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C. No.204 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court – I, Ariyalur.
Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but counter complaint in order to
escape from the clutches of law.
3.1. He further submitted that as far as the first petitioner is
concerned, she is working as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Government
Higher Secondary School, Sundagudi village, which is more than 20 Km away
from her house. There is no direct bus to her house and it will take minimum of
two hours journey in bus. Further on the date of alleged occurrence, she was in
school and attended the class. There is a evidence to show that the bio metric
attendance in the school premises. Therefore, the entire allegations made in the
FIR is nothing but illusory and ulterior motive of the second respondent as
counter blast and made the petitioners as accused in the impunged FIR.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
first respondent police filed counter and submitted that after the occurrence the
second respondent/defacto complainant admitted in the hospital. After recording
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
the statement of the defacto complainant and her husband, the present FIR has
been registered and entire investigation is completed and about to file a final
report. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be
investigated in deapth. 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall
not be interdicted."
8. In view of the above discussions, 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.18 of 2020 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, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Kairalabad (Thelur) Police Station,
Ariyalur District – 621 704.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.18389 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.7183 of 2020
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
