Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rathinasamy vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 6169 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6169 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2022

Madras High Court
Rathinasamy vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 March, 2022
                                                                                    Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022


                                      BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                          DATED: 25.03.2022

                                                               CORAM:

                                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                    Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022
                                                                and
                                                    Crl.M.P(MD) No.3936 of 2022
                     1.   Rathinasamy
                     2.   Mary @ Mari
                     3.   Sundari
                     4.   Arulmozhi @ Arulmozhi Chellaiah                               ... Petitioners
                                                                  Vs

                     1. The Inspector of Police
                       Sambavarvadakarai Police Station
                       Tenkasi District

                     2. Muthusamy                                                       ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
                     records relating to FIR in Crime No.86 of 2021 dated 24.03.2021 on the file of
                     the first respondent police and quash the same as against the accused 1 to 4.


                                        For Petitioners     : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi

                                        For Respondents     : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                        No.1                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                               ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

Crime No.86 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022

2. The defacto complainant claimed that he is the head of Arulmighu

Kulasekara Amman Thirukovil Trust and he went on saying that the said temple

belongs to particular community and other community people are holding no

right over the temple. Due to which several cases are pending. Hence on

24.03.2021 under the Chair of Tahsildhar, Kadayanallur both the parties have

given complaint before the first respondent police alleging that when the

kumbabisekam of the temple was going on the petitioner and the accused 5 to 6

barged into the Annathanam Mandabam and started attacking the devotees with

stick and abused them in filthy language, hence the case came to be registered.

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.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022

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.

25.03.2022

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav

To

1. The Inspector of Police Sambavarvadakarai Police Station Tenkasi 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.5541 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, aav

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5541 of 2022

25.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter