Madras High Court
Titus Williyam vs The State Rep. By on 28 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.18332 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.18332 of 2020
Titus Williyam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Kunnam Police Station,
Perambalur District.
(Crime No.527 of 2020)
2. Rajeshkannan
Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaperambalur,
Kunnam Taluk,
Perambalur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.527 of 2020
pending on the file of the Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Ashok kumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.527 of
2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 188,
269, 406, 417 & 420 of IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management
Act, 2005, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner being the District
Secretary of unorganized labour union, on a false promise to include the village
people in the labour welfare scheme to get Rs.1,000/- and free ration materials,
collected their Aadhar card, ration card and cash of Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- as
commission and cheated the villagers. Hence, the Village Administrative
Officer, Keelaperambular, lodged the present complaint as against the petitioner
and another.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Village Administrative Officer has lodged the complaint and no victim has
lodged any complaint. The petitioner is the President of the Non Government
Organization called Annai Therasa Educational Trust. As far as the petitioner is
concerned he never collected any money from the general public and all the
allegations are bald and vague. No offence is made out as against the petitioner
even according to the prosecution. Therefore he prayed to quash the F.I.R.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first
respondent police submitted that there are two accused in which the petitioner is
arrayed as A2. Both the accused persons had collected a sum of Rs.500 to
Rs.1000/- from the general public, on a false promise to include them in the
Labour Welfare Scheme to get Rs.1,000/- and also free ration materials, thereby
cheated the villagers of Keelaperambalur village. Hence, he prayed for dismissal
of the present petition.
5.Heard Mr.D.Ashok kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner 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 petitioner 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
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 offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
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.527 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.
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.18332 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kunnam Police Station,
Perambalur District.
(Crime No.527 of 2020)
2. The Village Administrative Officer,
Keelaperambalur,
Kunnam Taluk,
Perambalur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.No.18332 of 2020
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
