Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Gopalakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 4347 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4347 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2022

Madras High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 March, 2022
                                                                             Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 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.26 of 2020
                                                     in
                                          Crl.M.P(MD)No.3 of 2020


                1. Gopalakrishnan

                2. Balamurugan

                3. Balaguru                                                   ...Petitioners

                                                         Vs.


                1. The Inspector of Police,
                   City Crime Branch,
                   Madurai City,
                   Crime No.61 of 2019.

                2. R.John Sundara Pandinan                                    ...Respondents


                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

                this Court to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.61 of

                2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City

                as against the petitioners concern.


                1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020




                                      For Petitioner     : No Appearance



                                      For R1             : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                       ORDER

The petition had been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.61 of 2019,

on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

2.On perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that due to previous enmity, the

second respondent lodged a complaint and the respondent police has

registered the FIR in crime No.61 of 2019, for the offences under Sections

406, 420, 465, 469, 471, 294(b), 120(b) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 3 of

Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that already

entire bundle had been handed over to the petitioners and also withdrawn his

memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

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.

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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

"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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

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

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No lr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

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.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City,

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

lr

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

07.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter