Madras High Court
Sivasamy vs The State Represented By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.11949 of 2021
1.Sivasamy
2.Jesuraj ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Vaiyampatti Police Station,
Vaiyampatti,
Trichy District.
(Crime No.471 of 2021). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Maharani ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.471 of 2021 on
the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.T.M.Madasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R
in Crime No.471 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the
petitioners said to have harassed the defacto complainant's husband
Ilayaraja in connected with the debt borrowed by him on
08.11.2021 and thus, he has suffered a lot and committed suicide
on the same day owing to the said harassment. On the basis of the
said complaint, the first respondent registered F.I.R in Crime No.471
of 2021 for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C as against the
petitioners.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
4. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen
that the defacto complainant's husband spent money for the
marriage of the first petitioner. The first petitioner repaid the
amount leaving Rs.15,000/- to her husband. Hence, he insisted the
first petitioner for the repayment of money. Instead of paying Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
15,000/-, the first petitioner gave a gold chain weighing 8 grams to
her husband before three years. In the year 2020, the first
petitioner without repaying Rs.15,000/- insisted her husband the
return of his chain. The first petitioner also gave a complaint against
her husband before the first respondent. The first respondent
directed the first petitioner to repay Rs.15,000/- and get the chain
from her husband. On 08.11.2021, the petitioners came to her
residence and scolded her husband with un-parliamentary words.
On the same day, the defacto complainant's husband consumed
poison and on 09.11.2021, he died.
5. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
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."
7. 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 is directed
to complete the investigation and file a 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.
22.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20843 of 2021
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,
Vaiyampatti Police Station,
Vaiyampatti,
Trichy 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.20843 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.20843 of 2021
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
