Madras High Court
R.Ramasamy vs The State Represented By on 8 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.6372 of 2020
R.Ramasamy ... Petitioner/Accused No.11
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Madurai. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.V.S.Mahalingam ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in
Crime No.41 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash
the same as illegal as against the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For R – 1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.41 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
is working as Manager in the partnership firm namely Muthuvel Auto
Finance and Muthuvel Credits and they purchased the properties
measuring to an extent of 3 acres 90 cents situated at Samanatham
Village, Madurai District through a registered sale deed from the
first accused/Rajendran. The said sale deed was executed in favour
of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the first accused sold the
above said properties to the second accused through registered sale
deeds with the help of the other accused persons by creating forged
documents. In addition to that, the first accused cancelled the sale
deed executed in favour of the defacto complainant by
impersonating one Mahalingam with the help of the petitioner/Sub-
Registrar. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint. Based
on the said complaint, a case has been registered against the
petitioner and other accused in Crime No.41 of 2020 on the file of
the first respondent for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 463,
465, 468, 471 and 120(b) of I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
4. 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.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined
to quash the First Information Report. Hence, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. Since the investigation in Crime No.28 of
2020 merged with Crime No.41 of 2020, the first respondent is
directed to complete the investigation and file final report in Crime
No.41 of 2020, based on the documents produced by the petitioner
herein, 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
ps
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.13874 of 2020
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13874 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.13874 of 2020
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
