Madras High Court
Krishna Pillai vs State Represented By on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 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.98 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.14 of 2020
1.Krishna Pillai
2. R.Saravanan
3. M.Kumaravel
4. Ramesh Krishnan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli (FIR in Cr.No.27 of 2019)
2. Surjeet Kumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records culminated in FIR in Cr.No.27 of 2019 on the
file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal, this petitioners.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Prabhakaran
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : K.Prabhu
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 27 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the allegations are civil in nature,
the since the petitioners 1 and 2 were grabbed the land, therefore, the second
respondent lodged a complaint and based on the said complaint, the first
respondent had registered FIR in Crime No.27 of 2019, for the offences under
Sections 423,465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 109 of IPC.
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. 27 of 2019 for the offences under Sections
423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 109 of IPC as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file
the final report before the concerned court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 of 2020
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 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2022
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
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.98 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.98 of 2020
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
