Madras High Court
Sankar vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
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.3861 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2825 of 2022
1. Sankar
2. Pandiyan
3. Murali @ Muralikaran
4. Keerthi @ Kirtheeswaran
5. Suresh
6. Sundari @ Gunasundari
7. Suriya @ Surendran
8.Swedha
9. Karna @ Rajeshwari
10. Sakthivel
11. Amusu ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvaiyaru Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime No.98 of 2022
2. Vikram Dharma ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call
for the records relating to the FIR dated 29.01.2022 in Crime No.98 of 2022
pending on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side)
for R1
Mr. R.L.Dhilipan Pandian for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 98 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The prosecution case is that on 29.01.2022 at 08.00PM, the first
petitioner being advocate clerk had quarrel with the defacto complainant and his
friend and assaulted him using iron rod and bare hands. While being so, the
fourth petitioner had cut down the gold chain of the defacto complainant. In
that regard a case in Crime No.98 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 379 and 506(ii) of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case
in Crime No. 98 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323,
324, 379 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioners. However, he would
further submitted that counter case in Crime No.99 of 2022, has been registered
on the complaint given by the petitioner against the second respondent and it is
pending for investigation.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and examined the material on record, we are of the
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
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
First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the first respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation in both the cases, ie., in Crime Nos. 98 & 99 of 2022 and file final
report, after complying the procedure contemplated as per 588 of Police
Standing Order, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
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,
Thiruvaiyaru Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime No.98 of 2022
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3861 of 2022
&Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2825 of 2022
09.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
