Madras High Court
E.Pitchai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5495 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.3906 of 2022
1.E.Pitchai
2.P.Pandiyammal
3.P.Muthukalai ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Vikkaramangalam Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No. 204/2019)
2. Sekar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No. 204 of 2019 on the file
of the R1 dated 23.11.2019 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No. 204 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The Case of the Prosecution is that on 22.11.2019 at about 3 pm
when the 2nd petitioner, her mother in law, her husband were working in the
northern side of Arasu Maruthupatti road, the 2nd respondent, the realtor
Karkodal and his wife Maruthai had trespassed into the land and attacked the
2nd petitioner with a wooden rod pelted stone on them and intimidated to kill
her. In this connection the petitioner herein preferred complaint before the 1st
respondent and 1st respondent herein registered a case against Karkodal,
Maruthai and Sekar in Crime No.203/2019 U/s 447, 294 (b), 506(ii) IPC. To
counter suit the matter the 2nd respondent here in preferred complaint against
the petitioner alleging that on 22.11.2019 at about 3 pm, when the 2nd
respondent along with Karkodal and his wife Maruthai were carrying on
agricultural activities on their land, the petitioner came to the spot and abused
the 2nd respondent and her men alleging that the mangoes from the mango
tree and the agricultural equipments kept in the land were stolen away and
thereby intimidated her. On the strength of the complaint, the 1st respondent
herein registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 204/2019 U/s
294(b), 506(ii) IPC. Likewise on 16.07.2020 at about 3.30 pm the said Sekar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and his daughter Madhavi had abused Punniammal, the daughter in law of 1st
and 2nd petitioner's, beaten up her neck with stick and when she fell down,
they kicked her chest and threw stone on her leg. In this connection the
daughter in law gave complaint before the 1st respondent police and a case
was regiser in Crime No.545/2020 U/s 294(b), 323 IPC and section 4 of
TNPHW Act. To counter suit the matter one Aandichi the daughter of Sekar
had preferred a complaint against 1st petitioner, his son Murugan, daughter in
law Punniammal alleging that on 16.07.2020 at about 3.45pm the family
members of the Petitioners had assaulted the said Aandichi with a stick and
caused bleeding injuries and also assaulted all the members of the family.
Consequently the 1st respondent herein register a case against the family
member of the Petitioner in Cr.No.546/2020 U/s 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and
section 4 of the TNPHW Act.
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 Magistrate is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 otherwise of the said allegations has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Vikkaramangalam Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5495 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.3906 of 2022
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
