Madras High Court
Sathish Kumar @ Satheeskumar vs The State Rep By on 13 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14200 of 2022
1.Sathish Kumar @ Satheeskumar
2.Murali
3.Sheshathiri @ Sheshadri
4.Javagar @ Jawahar
5.Madeshwaran @ Madheswaran
6.Subramani
7.Raja
8.Sivakami ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The state rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Mallasamudram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
Cr.No.104 of 2022
2.Ramesh
Special Officer/Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE, Namakkal (DT),
Mugam Mallasamudram,
Arulmigu Chllandi Amman Saoleshwarar and
Alaguraya Perumal, Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/Accused A1 to A8 in Crime No.104 of 2022 dated
12.07.2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused A1 to
A8 in Crime No.104 of 2022 dated 12.07.2022 pending on the file of the
1st respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a law and order
problem to celebrate the car festival for the Arulmighu Chellandiamman
Choleeswarar and Azhagurayaperumal temple for the last few years.
Hence, a compromise meeting was arranged by the RDO , Tiruchengode
and one set of people as A party and petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 as B party
and they have given permission to conduct the festival with police
protection and festival started on 04.07.2022. While being so, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
12.07.2022, B party along with unknown people trespassed into the
temple and causing agitation and did not cooperate to conduct the
festival. When the same was questioned by the HRCE officials, B party
assaulted and abused them in a filthy language. Hence, the Assistant
Commissioner, HRCE had given a complaint before the respondent
police.
3. 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. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 104 of 2022 for the
offences under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 296, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC
as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first
respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and
the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 296, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC, 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 its 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
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 oath that the ingredients
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 104 of 2022 on the file
of the first respondent Police.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2022
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
nr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mallasamudram Police Station,
Namakkal District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
nr
Crl.O.P.No.21991 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14200 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
