Madras High Court
B.Bhaskar vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
1.B.Bhaskar
2.B.Vinoth ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.78 of 2020)
2.M.Megala ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.78 of
2020, pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.78 of 2020,
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 447, 448,
380, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2.1. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the owners of
the shop situated at Bandhar Street, Parries Corner, Chennai and rental the
shop to the defacto complainant since 2013. The defacto complainant running
a FSSI licensed fruit shop and paying a rent of Rs.15,000/- for every month
subsequently it was increased to Rs/20,000/- by the petitioners without consent
or intimation of the defacto complainant. On 10.07.2019, due to the increased
monthly rent, the defacto complainant intent to vacate the shop and the same
was intimate to the petitioners.
2.2. Thereafter, the next day morning at about 5.00 a.m., the defacto
complainant went to open the shop where, she noticed that the lock of the shop
was broken, entire things were thrown out and things worth about Rs.25,000/-
were looted from the shop. Thereafter, the defacto complainant contacted the
petitioners and questioned about the incident and they replied the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the defacto
complainant lodged complaint before the 1st respondent and the same was
registered in C.S.R.No.406 of 2019 on 16.07.2019. Further, the defacto
complainant had approached the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court -VIII,
for direction through 156(3) of Cr.P.C, in which the respondent police was
directed to investigate the case by which, the 1st respondent police registered
the case in Crime No.78 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447, 448, 380,
294(b), 506(2) of IPC, and the same was pending before the 1st respondent
police.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the 1st respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447,
448, 380, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
respondent police submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the first respondent police.
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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
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
whether the case would end in conviction or
acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the
complaint and consideration of the allegations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
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.18979 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, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the 1st
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.78 of 2020
and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
29.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.18979 of 2020
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
