Madras High Court
A.Saranika vs The State Represented By on 1 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2974 of 2022
1.A.Saranika
2.Tamilarasi ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Cumbum North Police Station,
Cumbum,
Theni District.
(Crime No.16 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. K.Honestraj ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in
Crime No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Eswaran
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR as against
the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that he
already returned the bundle to the petitioner and also given a change of
vakalath. Even then, the petitioners failed to represent on their behalf before
this Court. That apart, on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the defacto
complainant has completed his Law Degree, but he could not get his name
enrolled as an Advocate. He has been married to M.Yogeshree and she has
been working as an Executive Officer and posted at Kanyakumari District.
There are no issues to the defact complainant out of such wedlock. While so,
some differences of opinion have arisen between the defacto complainant and
his wife. Hence, both were seperated and they have been residing seperately.
He would also submit that in the said circumstances, the first petitioner and the
defacto complainant were school friends during their school days. Further, the
first petitoner has got married to one Jagadeesan of Cumbum Village, Theni
District. In fact, there are no contacts between the defacto complainant and the
said first petitioner. While so, during 2014, there had been an occasion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
first petitioner and the defacto complainant could meet each other through the
phones often. During such period, they developed friendship and the first
petitioner had informed the defacto complainant that she was married with the
above said Jagadeesan and out of such wedlock, they were blessed with a male
child and thereafter, there are some differences of opinion arisen in thier marital
life, resulting in which, the said Jagadeesan has left the first petitioner and the
male child and went to abroad for avocation and also informed that there was a
mutual consent divorce between them.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No. 16 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(1)
IPC as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file
the final report before the concerned court.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the
FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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 also 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 - 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
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.
6.........
7.........
8........
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. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
However, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
01.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Cumbum North Police Station,
Cumbum,
Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2974 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2974 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
