Madras High Court
Sabitha vs The State Through on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
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.1132 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.815 & 816 of 2022
1.Sabitha
2.Ganesan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 5
Vs.
1.The State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Kulithalai Police Station,
Karur District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Sugitha ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the impugned F.I.R registered by the first
respondent police in Crime No.942 of 2021, dated 30.11.2021 and
quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Siva Ilayaraja
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R – 2 : Mr.K.Arun Raj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R
in Crime No.942 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that
she married one Selvam in the year 2001 and out of their wedlock,
they have son and daughter. In the year 2019, she started business
in the name and style of Preethi Home Appliances in a rented
building belonged to the second petitioner/fifth accused and she
paying rent through the first accused to the second petitioner/fifth
accused. While so, on 16.08.2021, the first petitioner/accused No.1
and A.2 to A.4 and Mahalakshmi quarrelled with the defacto
complainant and assaulted her. Based on the complaint lodged by
the said Mahalakshmi, the second respondent appeared for enquiry,
however, the same was compromised. Thereafter, the second
petitioner along with A.1 and A.5 fabricated the records and
transferred the shop to the third accused. The defacto complainant
lost a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- which was invested in the shop and
the petitioners along with other accused threatened her with life
threat and A.1 also took away the rental agreement entered with A.
5. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R has been registered in Crime
No.942 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 376(2)(1), 294(b),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
354B, 406, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C as against the petitioners and
other accused.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
4. 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.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1132 of 2022
offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint,
the criminal proceeding shall not be
interdicted."
6. 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 Petitions are closed.
22.03.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
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.1132 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kulithalai Police Station,
Karur 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.1132 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.1132 of 2022
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
