Madras High Court
M.Prabhakaran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 12 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
32IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.2116 of 2022
M.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by Inspector of Police,
Elephant Gate Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.14 of 2020.
2. Radha Mani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records and quash the FIR as against the
petitioner/Accused in Crime No.1007 of 2021 pending investigation on the file
of Inspector of Police, Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1007 of 2021
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 408, 420,
465, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.1007 of 2021 for the offences under Sections
408, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed
to quash the same.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file
final report.
4. Heard Mr.T.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
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:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
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 only in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
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 in Crime No.1007 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent Police. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Elephant Gate Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.4207 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.2116 of 2022
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
