Madras High Court
D.Muthukumar vs The State Rep By on 30 June, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
32IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.8170 of 2020
D.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
S-5, Pallavaram Police Station,
St.Thomas Mount District,
Chennai.
2. S.Porkarasi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Crime No.568 of 2019 pending on the file of
the S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, St.Thomas Mount District under Section
341, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Woemn Act, 2002 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Sridharan
For Respondent R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.568 of 2019
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 341,
294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2019, while the defacto
complainant/second respondent along with her mother and three children
travelling in a bus, a private omni bus boarding from Chennai to Kamuthi in
seat Nos.7,8,9, the petitioner followed the said bus along with his friend,
waylaid and scolded the second respondent in filthy language and pulled her
hand. Thereafter, he also abused her in public and gave sexual torture to her.
Hence, the complaint.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.568 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341,
294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, 2002 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is yet to file final
report.
4. Heard Mr.G.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent.
5. 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.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
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 same. It is not necessary that a meticulous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
alleged against the accused are prima facie made
out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding
shall not be interdicted."
7. 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 first
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No. Crime
No.568 of 2019 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.
30.06.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
To
1. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
S-5, Pallavaram Police Station,
St.Thomas Mount District,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
Anu
Crl.O.P.No.19901 of 2020
30.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
