Madras High Court
Krishnamohan vs State Rep. By on 2 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4031 of 2022
in
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2935 of 2022
KrishnaMohan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No. 1166 of 2021)
2. Subramanian ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information
Report in Crime No. 1166 of 2021 on the file of the 1 st respondent and quash
the same in respect of the petitioner as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 1166 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The informant is the public limited company and engaged in
manufacture of yarn, woven and knitted fabrics as well as garments. It is a
leading exporter of textile products for nearly 14 years. The informant
company is having factories in various places in Tamil Nadu including one at
Arasanoor, Sivagangai District in the name of Shri Chintamani Textiles Mills.
The informant further submits that the first accused had been appointed as
Vice President(Marketing) at the informant factory. The second accused Chief
Executive Officer of M/s.Cottex Collections and the third accused is the Co-
Ordinating person of the said collections. The informant further states that
taking advantage of the absolute authority, the first accused joined hands
with the second and third accused and with dishonest intention conspired to
deceive the informant company with full knowledge that there is no
genuineness goods sale, had brought in an Export order from M/s.Virtual
apparels, USA for supply of 60000 pieces of T.Shirts and 16,200 Tank tops
worth about 148050/- USD vide purchase order No.1021 dated 22.01.2021, in
which all the accused had fixed a commission @14.62% on the FOB value of
the goods shipped. Further the accused persons also cheated the informant
and obtained the commission for agents to use for freight charges before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
delivery of goods. When the informant company even paid the commission
requested by the accused persons to meet payment of the freight charges
the payment from the buyer was not received by the informant as promised
by all the three accused. At this stage the company has come to know that
the buyer is not a genuine party and the order in their names is a bogus one.
Further the accused persons have also cheated the informant on various dates
and through various persons. Therefore it is clear that the company
sustained wrongly loss of Rs.1,46,23,400/-(including commission and
demurrage charges) and the accused obtained wrongful gain of the same
amount.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent 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. 1166 of 2021 for the offences under Sections
120(B), 465,409,468,420 of IPC as against the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is still pending.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegation as against the petitioner, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation 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.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East,
Thoothukudi District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4031 of 2022
02.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
