Madras High Court
R.Nandhakumar vs State Rep By on 14 September, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.No.14318 of 2022
1.R.Nandhakumar
2.V.Mallika
3.V.Chandra Sekaran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Erode.
2. M.Madhina ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Crime No.24 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent Erode and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Aswin Prasanna
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.22196 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.24 of
2022 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 fell in love with the victim girl.
On the pretext of marriage, he committed rape on the victim girl and thereafter,
refused to marry. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 2nd and 3rd petitioner are arrayed as A2 & A3, who are mother
and uncle of A1/1st petitioner herein are also involved in this case. They
threatened the victim when she came to their housing seeking to marry with
the A1. Therefore, the victim girl lodged a complaint. A2 & A3 appeared
before the police and gave an assurance that whenever A1 would come to their
house, they will hand over him. In view of the conceded representation, 1st
complaint was closed. Thereafter, A1 visited their house. A1 along with A2 &
A3 refused to marry the victim girl and also threatened her with dire
consequences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
on the 1st complaint lodged by the victim girl, it was enquired and closed.
Therefore, the present First Information Report is nothing by clear abuse of
process of Law and the 1st petitioner never had any relationship with the victim
girl.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police have only to file final report.
6. Heard Mr.Aswin Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the first respondent.
7. It is seen from the First Information Report, the 1st petitioner had
committed very serious offence as against the victim girl. He had committed
rape on compulsion on the pretext of marriage on several times and thereafter
he refused to marry the victim girl. The 2nd & 3rd petitioner being the mother
and uncle of the A1 also appeared before the police and gave an undertaking
that they will surrender A1. However, thereafter they refused to get A1 marry
the victim girl and also threatened her with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
8. Therefore, it is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under
Sections 417, 376 and 506(1) 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 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.
9. 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.22196 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
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."
10. 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.
14.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mpl
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Erode.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.22196 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.No.14318 of 2022
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
