Madras High Court
A.Christ Jenith vs The State Represented By on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4945 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2850 of 2020
A.Christ Jenith ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.44 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Peter Vijaykumar
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District. ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
records pertaining to F.I.R. in Crime No.44 of 2019 pending on the filed of the
first respondent under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 506(i) IPC and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahalingam
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.4945 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR as against
the petitioner in Crime No.44 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent for the
alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and 506(i) IPC.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on
04.10.2019, when the petitioner went to comply with the conditional order
before the respondent police made in Crime No.43 of 2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4010
of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari
District, the alleged occurrence took place. The case of the prosecution is that
on 11.09.2019, one, Aishwarya has given a complaint before the respondent
police against the petitioner herein, due to business motive since both were
carrying cable business in the same locality. Since, there was business enmity
with petitioner, one Aishwarya had lodged a complaint before the respondent
police that the petitioner has cut cable wires and scolded her in filthy language.
Thereafter, the respondent police have immediately registered an FIR in Crime
No.43 of 2019. The petitioner had made a bail application before the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District and this Court granted bail
on terms and condition, that the petitioner should appear before the respondent
police and make his presence at 10.30 a.m daily.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
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.44 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 and
506(i) IPC.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
the investigation is 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
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 and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4945 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4945 of 2020
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
