Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State Inspector Of Police on 8 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 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. 21553 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.14006 of 2022
Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Inspector of Police,
H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.113 of 2019) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the record pending on the file of respondent Police namely
State Inspector of Police, H-6 R.K.Nagar Police Station, in Cr.No.113 of 2019
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.113 of 2019
registered by the first respondent police for offences punishable under Sections
267 and 473 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others
were involved in manufacturing and selling of bogus Dip rod which is used for
measuring the oils substance in the tanker lorry.
3. Mr.S.Senthivel, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that
A1, namely Sundar @ Somasundaram is the manufacturer of the bogus dip rod
and the petitioner purchased the dip rod from A1, that apart there is no
allegation against the petitioner. However, the respondent register an FIR
against the petitioner in Crime No.113 of 2019. Hence, he prays for quashing
of FIR.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the would submit that
there is a very serious allegation as against the petitioner and this has to be
investigated in depth.
5. Heard Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022
petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
6. 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022
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
order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the
Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022
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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rgm/sma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21553 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sma/Rgm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No. 21553 of 2022
and Crl.MP.No.14006 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
