Madras High Court
Karl Marx vs The State Rep By Its on 5 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21089 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. 21089 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No. 13750 of 2022
Karl Marx .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State Rep by its
The Inspector of Police
Ulundurpet Police Station
Kallakurichi District
(Crime No.270/2022)
2. Antony Fernandes ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in connection with FIR in Crime No. 270 of
2022 dated 18.06.2022 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 270 of 2022
registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b)
and 506 (1) of IPC as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2022, the defacto
complainant made a complaint before the respondent police stating that the
petitioner and the defacto complainant had wordy quarrel and the petitioner
had abused with filthy language and threatened with dire consequenes. Hence,
this petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on
the very reading of the FIR, there is no allegations to make out the offences as
alleged by the prosecution. No weapons was used and FIR itself is manifestly
filled with malafide intention and it was registered for seeking vengeance as it
is a employee and employer dispute. Further submitted that without proper
inspection, the present FIR has been foisted against the petitioner. 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. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
allegations as against the petitioner 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.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.270 of 2022 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
dhk
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Ulundurpet Police Station
Kallakurichi District
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dhk
Crl.O.P.No.21089 of 2022
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
