Madras High Court
Ponusamy vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 14 June, 2022
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.14011 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.No.5373 of 2020
1. Ponusamy
2. Pushpa
3. Sivakumar
4.Thyagarajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Salem District.
2. The Block Development Officer,
Omalur, Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR
pending on the file of the first respondent in Cr.No.12 of 2019 dated
20.09.2020.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
For Petitioners : M/s.Karan and Uday
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section
482 Cr.P.C seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to Cr.No.12
of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had created a
sale deed with respect to Government Property (Pathway) for S.No.29/3
to the extent of 0.39 cents situated at Etttikuttapatti Village,
Narayanapuram Panchayat Union, Omalur Circle, Salem District vide
Doc.No.92 of 2019 before the District Munsif Omalur, Salem District
and obtained an order of Injuntion as against the second respondent from
forming a road in S.No.29/3. Hence, the complaint has been lodged by
the defacto complainant/2nd respondent as against the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
4. It is seen from the FIR, there are specific allegations against the
petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 120B,
420, 341, 353 of IPC.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by both counsel, this Court is not inclined to quash the
complaint lodged by the second respondent and this petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6. In this regard, 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., wherein, it has been held as under:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
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 therein, in the light of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
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 respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in
Crime No.12 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.06.2022
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Vv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.14011 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
Crl.O.P.No.14011 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.No.5373 of 2020
14.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
