Madras High Court
Abinandhan Gulecha vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 21661 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14042 of 2022
Abinandhan Gulecha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
G3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.692 of 2020
2. Mr.Magesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for entire records pertaining to the Crime No. 692 of 2020 on
the file of the Inspector of Police, G3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Raja
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed tocall for entire records pertaining to the
Crime No. 692 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, G3, Kilpauk
Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.
2. It is seen that there are totally 15 accused and the petitioner is
arrayed as 15th accused. It is alleged that when the respondent police while on
rounds in patrol, at that time, he found that the accused persons were illegally
playing rummy by depositing money.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is the
owner of the premises and he has rented it to the first accused and as such, he
has no knowledge about of the occurrence took place in the premises. Without
any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.692 of 2020 for
the offences under Sections 45 and 46 of Tamilnadu City Police Act, 1988, as
against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
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
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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
"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. It is not necessary that a meticulous
analysis of the case should be done before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
alleged against the accused are prima facie made
out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding
shall not be interdicted."
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sma
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 2020, the first
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.692 of 2020
and file a final report within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Sma
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
G3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21661 of 2022
CRL.O.P.No. 21661 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14042 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
