Madras High Court
M.Pushparani vs The State Rep By on 5 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 20862 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No. 13644 of 2022
M.Pushparani .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police
Mangadu Police Station
Ambattur
2. Eswari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR No. 1512/2020 dated
07.12.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in FIR No. 1512/2020
registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 448,
323, 427 & 379 of IPC as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
2. There are two accused and the petitioner is the first accused. The case
of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2020, the petitioner along with another
accused forcefully evicted the defacto complainant from the rental house and
also taken 10 sovereign of gold and other household articles.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is an innocent person and she was not present in the scene of
occurrence. He would further submit that as a neighbour of the second
accused, the petitioner asked the defacto complainant that why he is not paying
the rent. Further, he submitted that the date of occurrence was on 15.10.2020
and the FIR was registered on 07.12.2020. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police.
5. On perusal of the FIR, the date of occurrence is on 15.10.2020 and on
the same date, CSR No. 1446/2020 was issued to the petitioner and on
investigation, FIR was lodged on 07.12.2020. Therefore, there is absolutely no
delay in lodgment of the complaint. That apart, there are specific allegations to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
attract the offences under Sections 448, 323, 427 & 379 of IPC as against the
petitioner and prima facie case made out to attract the offences which has to be
investigated in deapth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and 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.
6. It is 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 in the case of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
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.
......................
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition
stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2020, the
fourth respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime
No.1512 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate,
if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
dhk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dhk
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Mangadu Police Station
Ambattur
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P.No.20862 of 2022
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
