Madras High Court
S.Sanjay vs The State By on 12 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.21835 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.21835 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.No.14129 of 2022
S.Sanjay ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State by:-
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS – Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai - 600087.
2. K.Sadhanya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and quash the First Information Report
registered by the 1st respondent police in AWPS Valasaravakkam Crime No.1
of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Muralidharan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the First
Information Report registered by the 1st respondent police in Crime No.1 of
2022.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent, who is the
estranged wife of the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint dated
06.07.2022 alleging that the petitioner had installed a GPS device in her
bike/scooter without her knowledge and she was being constantly followed by
the petitioner's henchmen and was also given veiled threats. Hence, the
complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
only major allegation is installation of GPS device on the vehicle of the de-
facto complainant Viz., 2nd respondent. Already there is a case pending
between them in respect of custody of the child. While being so, a false
complaint has been falsely foisted as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed
to quash the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.S.M.Muralidharan, 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 offences under Sections
354D(2), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
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."
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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. However, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
in Crime No.1 of 2022 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
12.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mpl
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
AWPS – Valasaravakkam Police Station,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai - 600087.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.21835 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.No.14129 of 2022
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
