Madras High Court

Naresh Kumar vs The State on 8 September, 2022

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.21374 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13911 of 2022

1. Naresh Kumar
2. Krishnaveni
3. Jithenthar
4. Kanjaloshana ... Petitioners

Vs.
1. The State, represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kallakurichi Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.

2. Mohan Ranganathan ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records made in FIR, Crime No.118 of 2022 on the file
of Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, the first respondent herein
and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R3 : Mr.S.N.Subramani
ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.118 of 2022

registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent had lodged a

complaint alleging that the first petitioners obtained signature from the

mentally disordered person namely Geethesan and had obtained Patta in

respect of the subject property only with the intention to grab the entire

property. Further, it is alleged that the will executed in favour of Geethesan on

22.01.2018 vide Registered Document No.06 of 2018, also categorically

mentioned that the said Geethesan is a mentally disordered person.

3. In fact in O.S.No.15 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District

Court, Salem, declared that the said Geethesan is a mentally disordered person.

While being so, the accused persons obtained the signature from the un-sound

person and obtained patta transfer using fabricated documents to grab the

property. Hence, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.118 of

2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of

IPC.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said

Geethesan is not a mentally disordered person and he further submits that the

suit in O.S.No.15 of 2016 was dismissed for default. In fact, the second

respondent/defacto complainant is facing a charge for the offence under

Section 302 for killing their own mother.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the

petitioners are guardians of Geethesan,who is the only son of Kumudha and

the said Geethesan studied B.C.A and Engineering. However, there is a life

threat from his cousins and therefore, the first petitioner got legal heir

certificate and based on the said legal certificate, he obtained patta. Despite of

the subject property which was obtained by will in favour of the said

Geethesan. In fact, the second respondent/defacto complainant preferred an

appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer as against the transfer of Patta

and the same was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer that too through

video conferencing. Now, appeal is pending before the District Collector

therefore, there is no allegation of fabrication or falsification of documents to

attract offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. Hence, he

prays to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

8. Heard Mr.S.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.N.Subramani, learned counsel for

the second respondent.

9. There are serious allegations as against the petitioners, since they

obtained signature from the mentally disordered person and obtained patta. In

fact, the patta was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Though the

appeal is pending before the District Collector, there is a prima facie case made

out by registering FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. That apart, in case of Section

302, the investigation is to be done to unearth the matter.

11. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific

allegations as against the petitioners 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

12. 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 Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

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."

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to

complete the investigation in Crime No.439 of 2015 and file a final report

within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order,

before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

08.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order Sma/Rgm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21374of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.