Madras High Court
A.Siva vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21254 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.21254 of 2022
A.Siva ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Arakandanallur, Kandachipuram (TK)
Villupuram-605 752.
(Crime No.253 of 2019)
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for records of the proceedings in Crime No.253 of 2019 on the
file of the Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Devi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
****
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.253 of 2019
registered by the respondent police for offences under Sections 379 of IPC and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
Section 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957,
as against the petitioner.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is a poor former and he is paid a daily wage on the basis of work.
He has a bullock cart, which is used for carrying cow dung, sugarcane and all
other agriculture purpose. While being so, on 03.06.2019 the petitioner carried
less than 1/4 unit of river sand in his bullock cart for his personal use.
Therefore, the respondent foisted a false case as against the petitioner as he
stolen the river sand without any permission. Because of the pendency of FIR,
the petitioner could not able to go abroad for his avocation.
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. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
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 where the complaint does not disclose any
offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
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 the
First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the respondent
is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.253 of 2019 and file a
final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
07.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kmi
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Arakandanallur Police Station,
Arakandanallur, Kandachipuram (TK)
Villupuram-605 752.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
CRL.O.P.No.21254 of 2022
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
