Madras High Court
G.Surendran vs State Represented By on 10 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
& Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3220 of 2022
G.Surendran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thillai Nagar Police Station,
Trichy City.
Crime No.206 of 2021.
2. Kalaiselvi ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call
for the records relating to the proceedings in the FIR in Crime No.206 of 2021
dated 08.03.2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thillai Nagar Police
Station, Trichy City and quash the same as against the petitioner/accused No.3.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthumani
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
R1 Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 206 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that as per the request of Bandhan bank
employees, the defacto complainant opened an account in that bank and
maintained a balance of Rs.19,95,160/- and during August 2019 she wanted to
closed the bank account and for that she handed over 18 unused cheques,
without her signature to the bank's employees. The bank employees convinced
her to continue the account. After that, the defacto complainant also continue to
maintain the said account and requested to return the above said 18 cheques to
her. But the bank's employees issued fresh cheque book to her. During February
2021, she requested to make entry in the pass book, but the same was refused
that the passbook printing machine was under service. On suspicion, she sent
her son to the bank and came to know that on 06.10.2020, the bank Manager
Anuradha transferred Rs.16,00,000/-, from her account, using the defacto
complainant's cheque bearing No.000005 to one R.Paramasivam's account.
Thereby, amount has been illegally transferred amount from the defacto
complainant's account, using her cheque and committed forgery. With the above
allegations, the first respondent police registered the above FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
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. 206 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 406, 468
and 471 IPC as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
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.4564 of 2022
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.
10.03.2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
To:
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thillai Nagar Police Station,
Trichy City.
Crime No.206 of 2021.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4564 of 2022
& Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3220 of 2022
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
