Madras High Court
V.Vaishali vs The State By Inspector Of Police on 7 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.21276 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.21276 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13864 of 2022
1. V.Vaishali
2. V.Karan
3. R.Parimala
... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State by Inspector of Police,
S-4, Nandambakkam Police Station,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai.
2. Veda Arun Nagarajan
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records of FIR registered in Crime
No.203/2018 dated 04.09.2018 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Radha Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of
FIR registered in Crime No.203/2018 dated 04.09.2018 pending on the file of
the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent made a
complaint on 04.09.2018 before the first respondent against the petitioners and
also, one Mrs.V.Nandhini, who is mother of the 1st and 2nd petitioners and
daughter of third petitioner, and FIR in Crime No.203/2018 was registered
against them on same day. It is alleged that the petitioner and said
Mrs.V.Nandhini have received a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- on various days by way
of cash and through Bank, for which the said Nandini has given property
documents of the first petitioner i.e., 557/2017 & 558/2017 and subsequently,
the petitioners have given cheques for a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- for part
payment, whereas those cheques were returned unpaid and second respondent
came to know that the said documents also forged one. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent approached the petitioners and Mrs.V.Nandhini and asked them
about the repayment of money while they have threatened him with dire
consequences. While so, on 04.09.2018 the second respondent was going to
buy medicine, he was attacked by the petitioners and the said Nandhini with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
weapons and the second respondent sustained injuries. Hence, the second
respondent lodged a complaint and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.203
of 2018 under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 307 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
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.
......................
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
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."
5. 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 2018, the first
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.203 of 2018
and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.09.2022
kmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kmi
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
S-4, Nandambakkam Police Station,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21276 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.13864 of 2022
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
