Madras High Court
Natarajan vs The State Rep By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.6760 of 2020
1.Natarajan
2.T.Ponnuchamy
3.Prema
4.Prithvi ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Udayalipatti Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
2.Manjula ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records pertaining to the Crime No.172 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of
Police, Udayalipatti Police Station, Pudukottai District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to Call for the records
pertaining to the Crime No.172 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Udayalipatti Police Station, Pudukottai District and quash the same.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners' changed the ownership of
the car by forging the defacto complainant's husband signature, when the same
was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners evaded to give any
reply and also abused her in filthy language and also threatened her with dire
consequences. In that regard a case in Crime No.172 of 2020 was registered
against the petitioners under Sections 420, 294(b), 447, 506(i), 379 (NP), 406
and 420 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 the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.172 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420,
294(b), 447, 506(i), 379 (NP), 406 and 420 of IPC as against the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the
final report before the concerned court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
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.
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 persons. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
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 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.
22.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
tta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Udayalipatti Police Station,
Pudukkottai 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.14429 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
tta
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14429 of 2020
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
