Madras High Court
K.Prabu vs State Rep By on 16 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14358 of 2022
K.Prabu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep by:-
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.11 of 2022)
2. Ramya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the entire records connected with F.I.R in Crime No.11 of
2022 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Balamanikandan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
(for R1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.11 of 2022
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A),
294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against
the petitioner.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
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.11 of 2022 for the offences under Sections
498(A), 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and
the first respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.Balamanikandan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.11 of 2022 and file a final report
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order,
before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.22302 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
