Madras High Court
Paul Thomas vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
Paul Thomas ...Petitioner / Accused No.1
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Sanarpatti Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... 1st Respondent /
(Crime No. 389 of 2015) Complainant
2. S.Arokiyasmay ...2nd Respondent /
Defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.
389 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as
illegal against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ukkara Pandian
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a direction to quash the FIR in
Crime No. 389 of 2015, on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2010, the defacto
complainant had sold his property for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and deposited
Rs.5,00,000/- in the joint account of the defacto complainant and
Maryajesuraj, who is the son of the defacto complainant and divided the
balance amount to his son and daughters. The petitioner herein is the
grandson of the defacto complainant and Samyraj is the father of the
petitioner. Samyraj promised to register the land in S.Nos.529/16, 529/17
situated in Koovanuthur Village, Odaipatti in the name of the defacto
complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant had withdrawn the said
amount without his son's knowledge on 28.12.2013 and given to the petitioner
and samyraj in the presence of his wife and brother in law of the defacto
complainant. But, on 31.12.2013, the said land had been registered in the
name of the petitioner before the Sanarpatti Registrar Office in Doc.No.
3152/2013 and in addition to that the petitioner also got Rs.2,50,000/- from
one maryajesuraj, who is the son of the defacto complainant and two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
sovereign gold chain from the wife of the defacto complainant. Hence, the
defacto complainant had repeatedly approached the petitioner to recover
amount and gold. Finally, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on
14.05.2015, so that the petitioner agreed to return two sovereign gold and a
sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defacto complainant and promised to return the
balance amount in installment, if not returned then, make a complaint on it.
On 15.09.2015, the petitioner and other accused in crime No.389 of 2015
were given life threat to the defacto complainant along with weapons and
used filthy language. Hence, the above said FIR has been registered under
Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.
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. 389 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and
506(ii) of IPC.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on
the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, first respondent registered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
FIR in Crime No.389 of 2015 and for the same, investigation is pending.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
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., wherein, it
has been held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
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 and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.
04.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Sanarpatti Police Station,
Dindigul 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.4286 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4286 of 2022
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
