Madras High Court
N.Anand vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13859 of 2022
N.Anand ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the District Crime Branch,
Nilgiris District.
(Crime No.6 of 2022)
2. P.Rajkumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the file
of the District Crime Branch, Nilgiris District as against the petitioner/second
accused.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sugadev Rajaguru
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan for R2
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2022
registered by the respondent police for offences under Section 420 of IPC as
against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally three accused. A1
and A2 are brothers. The first accused sold the subject property in favour of
the de facto complainant namely second respondent herein in the year 2018 by
registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1209/2018 in respect of the property
comprised in Old Survey No.304/2, New Survey Nos.1626/1&1626/2
admeasuring 1.09 Acres in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kothagiri.
However, registered document was not handed over to the de facto
complainant. When he enquired about the same, he found that on instructions
given by A3, who is a Sub Registrar, Kothagiri, he handed over the original
Sale Deed to the first accused. Therefore, the first accused filed a suit in
OS.No.24 of 2022 for declaration declaring the sale deed registered as
Document NO.1209/2018 is null and void on the ground that the sale
consideration was not paid to him. Further allegation is that the second
accused, who is an Advocate, earlier who is appearing for the de facto
complainant from the year 2019. Now A1 and A2 joined together and cheat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
the de facto complainant and conspired with the Sub Registrar, Kothagir and
received the original document in favour of the de facto complainant. The first
accused filed a suit, in which the second accused is the counsel on record.
When the second accused already appeared for the second respondent/de facto
complainant, he appeared for the first accused and file a suit as against the
second respondent, which amounts to misconduct.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the
allegation that he directed A3/Sub Registrar to hand over the sale deed in
favour of the first accused, the petitioner has no role to play in the crime
alleged to have committed by the first accused. The petitioner, being an
Advocate, filed a suit on behalf of the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that there
are specific averments against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420
of IPC. That apart the petitioner, who is an Advocate, being appeared for the
de facto complainant, also appeared on behalf of the first accused and filed a
suit as against the de facto complainant. It amounts to misconduct and he is
liable to be punished by the Bar Counsel of Tamil Nadu.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
second respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the FIR reveals that a case is made out against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. With the intention to
cheat the second respondent/de facto complainant, A1 & A2 conspired with
A3, who is the Sub Registrar, Kothagiri and received the original Sale Deed.
After a period of so many years, they challenged the Sale Deed on the ground
that sale consideration was not paid.
7. 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
machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in
accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
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
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.
......................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
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."
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
07.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
To
1. The District Crime Branch,
Nilgiris District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kmi
CRL.O.P.No.21267 of 2022
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
