Madras High Court
Sathish vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 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.11294 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.5146 of 2020
Sathish ... Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
State represented by
1.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.K.Ponnalagu ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in Crime No.101 of 2016 on the file of the
respondent police and quash the same against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramaniyam
For R – 1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR
in Crime No.101 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2016 at about
22 hours, the petitioner and his brothers drove the motorbike in a
high speed. Due to the said act, the second respondent/defacto
complainant intercepted and quarrelled with the petitioner and
others. The petitioner along with other accused scolded the second
respondent in filthy language and attacked the defacto complainant
and his sons. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint
and the same has been registered in Crime No.101 of 2016 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 of I.P.C.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 of 2020
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........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 of 2020
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."
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. However, the first respondent police is
directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11294 of 2020
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.
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.11294 of 2020
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam 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.11294 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11294 of 2020
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
