Madras High Court
Abdul Kani vs State Represented By on 9 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2022
1. Abdul Kani
2. Rehana Begam
3. Narayanasamy ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
(In Crime No.78 of 2021)
2. The Additional Director General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
3. A.W.Thameem Ansari ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call
for the records of the FIR in Crime No.78 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 registered
on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal in so far as the
petitioners are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side)
for R1 & R2
Mr. Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
M/s.Ajmal Associates for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No. 78 of 2021 on the file of the 1st Respondent.
2. The prosecution case is that A2 was running a transport company and
he invited investors to invest money in his company and induced them to invest
Rs.5,00,000/- on the assurance that he would be given Rs.11,000/- per month.
Having faith in his words, the defacto complainant, handed over cheques for a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. After receiving the cheques, on 01.02.2016, A2 handed
over a stamped paper to the defacto complainant and three unregistered deeds of
undertaking in respect of the sum mentioned in the three cheques. On hearing
demise, the defacto complainant went to the company only to see the locked
doors. In that regard a case in Crime No.78 of 2021 was registered against the
petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
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. 78 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as
against the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation has been transferred from the first respondent to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, Trichy and pending for investigation.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioners, which have 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
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
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 ought not to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
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, now the investigation has been transferred from the first
respondent to Deputy Superintendant of Police, EOW, Trichy and it is pending
for investigation. Considering the above the Deputy Superintendant of Police,
EOW, Trichy is directed to complete the investigation within 16 weeks, from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to
monitor the investigation done by the Deputy Superintendant of Police, EOW,
Trichy and ensure that Deputy Superintendant of Police, EOW, Trichy is
complying with the order passed by this Court. It is also seen that there are
incidents to attract offence under TNPID Act. Even then, the investigation
agency failed to alter the offence. Considering the above, Deputy
Superintendant of Police, EOW, Trichy is directed accordingly and file an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
alteration of offences and proceed with the investigation. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.03.2022
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.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Thanjavur.
(In Crime No.78 of 2021)
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Trichy.
3. The Additional Director General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19592 of 2021
& Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3176 of 2022
09.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
