Madras High Court

K.S.Arul vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 September, 2022

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 12.09.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022
                                              and Crl.M.P.No.3808 of 2022
                     1. K.S.Arul
                     2. K.E.Sekar                                               ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.
                     1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
                        D4, R.K. Pettai Police Station,
                        R.K.Pettai Taluk,
                        Tiruvallur District.
                        (Crime No.178 of 2013)

                     2. K.A.Moganavelu                                          ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
                     to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.178 of 2013 dated 07.06.2013
                     on the file of the first respondent police ans quash the same.


                                     For Petitioner    : Mr.K.Venkatesan
                                     For Respondents
                                           For R1    : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                       Additional Public Prosecutor
                                           For R2    : Mr.G.Pavendhan


                     Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

FIR in Crime No.178 of 2013 dated 07.06.2013, registered by the first

respondent for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, as

against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second petitioner and

the second respondent are brothers born to the first wife and second wife

of one Elumalai. While being so, there was a dispute in respect of the

property, since there is no partition between the legal heirs of late

Elumalai. Therefore, the second respondent and other legal heirs filed

suit in O.S.No.37 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Pallipettu for partition as against the legal heirs of the first and second

wives of the said Elumalai. Further the legal heirs of the first and second

wives also filed suit in O.S.No.279 of 2001 for declaration.

3. While pending the civil dispute between the legal heirs in

respect of the properties, the second respondent/defacto complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

lodged complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.178 of

2013 for the offences under Section 341, 294(b), 323 & 506(i) of IPC as

against the petitioners. The allegation is that when the second respondent

riding his motorcycle, the petitioners had traveled in their vehicle and

obstructed the road and stopped suddenly and dashed the defacto

complainant's two wheeler. When the same was questioned by the second

respondent, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences and

also attacked with milk case cover. Hence the present complaint.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Due to civil dispute

between, the defacto complainant foisted the false case and without any

base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.178 of

2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 & 506(i) of IPC,

as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

submitted that the petitioner are father and sons and they are creating

unnecessary problems and threatening abusing with unparliamentary

words by using weapons attacked at several time. Therefore, the second

respondent and his family members sustained severe injuries. Therefore,

he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

first respondent submitted that in the present crime, already investigation

completed and filed charge sheet and the same has to be taken

cognizance.

7. Heard Mr.K.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the first respondent police and Mr.G.Pavendhan, learned

counsel appearing for the second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

8. It is seen that already the first respondent registered the FIRs

in Crime No.313 of 2010 for the offences under Section 147, 148,

294(b), 427, 506(ii) of IPC; Crime No.107 of 2012 for the offences under

Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC and finally the present

impugned FIR has been registered in Crime No.178 of 2013. Thereafter,

again another FIR has been registered in Crime No.199 of 2013 for the

offences under Section 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC. In fact, the

second respondent was already convicted in S.C.No.68 of 2002 by the

judgment dated 07.05.2003 passed by the learned District Judge,

Chengalpattu.

9. Further the First Information Report revealed 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed

in the Code.

10. 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

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 prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

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."

11. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the

bad antecedent of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to quash the

First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition

stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

12.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, D4, R.K. Pettai Police Station, R.K.Pettai Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6683 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,