Madras High Court
Raja @ Jagadeesan vs State Rep. By on 8 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.988 of 2022
in
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.705 of 2022
Raja @ Jagadeesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.19 of 2021)
2. Salaimonadasan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to to call for the records in connection with Crime No.19 of 2021
on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the F.I.R. in so far as the
petitioner is concerned/Accused 2.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
R1 Additional Public Prosecutor
R2 : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 19 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was property dispute
between the parties and in order to grab the property of the defacto
complainant, on 21.05.2021, the accused persons break open the house of
the defacto complainant and on 16.06.2021, without his permission the
accused persons by showing forged documents, letting the house to third
party, after getting Rs.5,50,000/- from them. With the above allegations,
the respondent police registered the above FIR.
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. 19 of 2021 for the offences under Sections
419, 420, 448, 464, 468, 471IPC as against the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.988 of 2022
in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.705 of 2022
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
