Madras High Court
Seeni Bros Khan vs State Through on 7 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2020
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.2603 of 2020
in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1357 of 2020
1. Seeni Bros Khan
2. Seeni Najeer Ali ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Kennikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. Mohamed Pathiyulla ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in Crime No.491 of 2019 on the file of 1 st respondent dated
29.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 491 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2019 at 4.00PM, the first accused
teased his brother using filthy language and assaulted him. The same was
questioned by the defacto complainant, due to which, the petitioners assaulted
the defacto complainant by using weapons and caused injury. In that regard a
case in Crime No.491 of 2019 was registered against the petitioners under
Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 336, 506(i) 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. 491 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323,
324, 336, 506(i) IPC as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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.2603 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis out whether the materials would lead to a
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2020
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
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
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,
Kennikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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.2603 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2020
in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1357 of 2020
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
