Madras High Court
Arul @ Arul Stephen vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
Arul @ Arul Stephen ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Colachel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.312 of 2019)
2. Bibin Deva ...Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
for the records pertaining to F.I.R in Crime No.312/2019 U/s. 147, 148, 294(b),
324, 506(2) of IPC dated 02.12.2019 on the file of the 1st Respondent police and
quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner/accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.S.Sundarapandian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in
Crime No.312 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 on the file of the 1st Respondent police
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused used to consume alcohol
near the defacto complainant's house and use filthy languages. The defacto
complainant had frequently questioned the accused for his nuisance. On
01.12.2019, the accused called the defacto complainant for compromise but
suddenly started to beat him. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a
complaint before the first respondent and FIR had been registered in Crime No.
312/2019 for the offences under Sections 47, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPC.
3.Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a
memo of compromise between the petitioner and the second respondent, this
Court had given three opportunities for the presence of the parties. However,
the parties never appeared before this Court to record their compromise, it
shows that they have no entered into any compromise and the dispute continues
between them.
4.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
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."
5.With the above observation, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition to quash the FIR on
compromise.
07.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
lr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Colachel Police Station,
Kanyakumari 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.2885 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2022
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
