Madras High Court
Lakshmipriya vs The State Rep By on 6 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.11956 of 2022
Lakshmipriya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Udumalpet Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
(Crime No.35 of 2020)
2. Subbukani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for all the records relating to the Crime No.35 of 2020 on the
file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.35 of 2020
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 447,
294(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the daughter-
in-law of the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and there was a
matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband. It is alleged that
on 08.06.2019 at 9.00 am., the petitioner went to the defacto complainant
house and attacked her and her husband and also abused them with filthy
language and threatened with dire consequences. As directed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, in C.M.P.No.6217 of 2019, the present
FIR has been registered by the first respondent police.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
4. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be
investigated in depth. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in
accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
5. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
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.18123 of 2022
6. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2020,
the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.35 of
2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already
filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Udumalpet Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.18123 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.11956 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
