Madras High Court
Uma vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6815 of 2020, 3878 and 6878 of 2021
1.Uma
2.Ramamani ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
Vattathikottai West Police Station,
Thanjavur District,
Crime No.1156 of 2020.
2.Sneha (Died)
3.Gunasekaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
the First Information Report in Crime No.1156 of 2020, pending on the file
of the respondent Police in respect of the petitioners is concerned.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R1
Mr.N.Anandan for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 1156 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2. The prosecution case is that one Jagadeeswaran, who is the relative
of the petitioners, took the car from the house of the second respondent and
when he returned the vehicle in the house of the second respondent, taking
advantage of disconnection of electricity, he tried to misbehave with her,
but she slapped him and shouted. Thereafter, on 22.08.2020, he committed
suicide. While so, on the same day, when the said Sneha was standing near
the petty shop, the petitioners, who are the sister-in-law and aunt's daughter
of the said Jagadeeshwaran, have joined together and attacked her with
wooden stick and poured kerosene on her. Immediately, she was taken into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
the hospital, but she died . In that regard a case in Crime No. 1156 of 2020
was registered against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 352, 302 of
IPC.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocents 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.1156 of 2020 for the offences under Sections
294(b), 352, 302 of IPC as against the petitioners.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
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
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., where in it
is held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
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.........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
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."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
stands dismissed. However, the 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 petitions are closed.
21.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
ssb
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vattathikottai West Police Station,
Thanjavur 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.14506 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
ssb
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14506 of 2020
21.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
