Madras High Court
K.Sundarajan vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.13831 of 2022
1. K.Sundarajan
2. K.Subramaniam
3. S.Pappathi
4. S.Prabhu ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State represented by,
1. The Inspector of Police,
Puduchathiram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.134 of 2022)
2. Rengasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records made in FIR Crime No.134 of
2022 on the file of Inspector of Police, Puduchethiram Police Station, the
First Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the
records made in FIR Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file of Inspector of
Police, Puduchethiram Police Station, the First Respondent herein and
quash the same as illegal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
availed hand loan from the first petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- for
family expenses for which, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour
of the second petitioner, for the land belongs to the defacto complainant's
wife. Thereafter, the defacto complainant availed further loan for a sum
of Rs.8,00,000/- from the first petitioner for the marriage expenses of his
daughter, for which, again the first petitioner demanded to execute a sale
deed for the land which belongs to the defacto complainant's father, on
the promise of cancelling the Power of Attorney and sale deed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
repayment of the entire loan amount. Believing his words, the defacto
complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the third petitioner.
Thereafter, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and
when he asked the first petitioner to cancel the Power of Attorney
executed in favour of the second petitioner and the sale deed executed in
favour of the third petitioner, the petitioners refused to cancel and
demanded further money with huge interest and also threatened the
defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base,
the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2022, for
the offences under Sections 120B, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, as against the
petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have
only to file final report.
5. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under
Sections 120B, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, 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 its 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
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."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file
of the first respondent Police. However, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation and file a final report, within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Puduchathiram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21234 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.13831 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
