Madras High Court
R.Kumaran vs The State Rep By on 13 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.21813 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.21813 of 2022
1.R.Kumaran
2.R.Veeramuthu
3.C.Ramanathan
4.Logambal @ Rajeswari
5.Raja @ Rajkumar
6.Vellaimmal
7.Bhuvaneswari ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The state rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Poonamalle,
Chennai-56.
2.Vardhini ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in respect of the Crime No.24
of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sadhananthan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in respect of the Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector
of Police, All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai and quash
the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant/victim girl aged about 15 years was compelled to get
married with the 1st petitioner herein. Thereafter, on compulsion, the 1st
petitioner, who is being the brother of the 2nd petitioner herein had
penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl. Therefore, the 1st
respondent police registered FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with Sections
5(l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act,2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 based on the complaint given by
the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
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.24 of 2021 for the
offences under Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with
section 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act,2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 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.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with Sections 5(l),
5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition
of Child Marriage Act, 2006, 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
required to apply his judicial mind only with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
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
of the offence are disclosed, there would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
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."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of
the first respondent Police.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
13.09.2022
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
nr
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Poonamalle,
Chennai-56.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
nr
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
