Madras High Court
Dr. S.Usha vs The State Rep By on 29 June, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.18971 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.18971 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.7518 of 2020
Dr. S.Usha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Coimbatore City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.46 of 2018)
2.Vasantha Kumari ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to quash the FIR 46 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Combatore
City Crime Branch, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.46 of 2018,
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 193, 196,
199, 200, 468, 471, 420 r/w 109 IPC, as against the petitioner.
2.1. The petitioner herein is a Doctor and she was permitted to retire as
Government Civil Surgeon, Combatore Medical College Hospital on
30.10.2018 by the Government subject to charges. On 25.07.2018, the
petitioner issued a medical certificate in favour of Mohamed Sahib and the
said certificate was produced without knowledge of the petitioner before the
Special Court under EC NDPS Act, Coimbatore on behalf of the accused. Due
to which, the Government of Tamil Nadu initiated departmental proceedings as
against the petitioner by framing charges under Rule 17(B) of Tamil Nadu
Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules.
2.2. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had approached the 1st
respondent police by way of complaint dated 20.09.2018 against the petitioner
and others. Hence, the complaint was registered in FIR.No.46 of 2018 for the
alleged offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 468, 471, 420 r/w 109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
IPC. Further, the petitioner was arrayed as 4th accused in this case by the
complainant as against the said proceedings and the petitioner filed a quash
petition on some other grounds before this Court, which was withdrawn by the
petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Further, the defacto complainant has no jurisdiction
to approach the complainant as against the petitioner and without any base, the
1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2018 for the offences
under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 468, 471, 420 r/w 109 IPC, as against the
petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1 st
respondent police submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police have only to file final report.
5. No one appearing for the petitioner and heard Mr.A.Gopinath, learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
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
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.
......................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
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."
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 2018, the 1st
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in FIR No.46 of 2018 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ata
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Coimbatore City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
Crl.O.P.No.18971 of 2020
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
