Madras High Court
Krishnamoorthy vs The State Represented By on 13 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.18615 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.18615 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12300 of 2022
Krishnamoorthy ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The state represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vishnukanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
2.Kamatchi Bai ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR
registered in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arvind
For Respondent 1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Anbalagan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records pertaining to the FIR registered in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the
file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that that the defacto complainant
had given her 39 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels to her son, brothers in law
and the petitioner herein for safe keeping on 13.08.2020. When she
asked for her jewels, her brothers in law had given her receipt of
mortgage of the jewels kept in REPCO bank. Hence, the complaint and
the petitioner has been arrayed as 4th accused in Crime no.465 of 2022
for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner married the defacto complainant's daughter on
19.04.1996, both are belonged to different communities and now they are
living happily. While being so, petitioner's father-in-law passed away on
23.04.2020 and the petitioner's wife filed a suit for partition along with
her brother for her legal share in respect of the properties of her father in
O.S.No.103 of 2020 before the learned District Court, Kancheepuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
and the same was pending. He would further submit that the defacto
complainant and her brothers-in-law compelled his wife to withdraw the
suit. When she refused to withdraw the same, a false case has been
foisted against the petitioner for the above said offences. The present FIR
is nothing but only to wreck the vengeance on the petitioner. Hence, he
seeks to quash the FIR.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first
respondent would submit that the investigation has been completed and
final report has been filed and also produced the copy of the final report
before this Court. It revealed that after recording the statement from the
witnesses, charges is made out for the offence under Section 420 of IPC
r/w 34 of IPC.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
6. On perusal of the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section
Section 420 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
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
no justification for the High Court to
interfere.
......................
9. Having heard the learned Senior
Counsel and examined the material on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
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
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.465 of 2022 on the file
of the first respondent Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
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,
Vishnukanchi Police Station,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
nr
Crl.O.P.No.18615 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12300 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
