Madras High Court
M.Nanndakumar vs State Represented By on 21 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.14574 of 2022
M.Nanndakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode, Erode District.
Crime No.456 of 2019.
2. M.Ambalavanan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.456 of 2019 on
the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same insofar as the
petitioner in concern.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sai Narayana Vasan
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed calling for the records relating to the FIR in
Crime No.456 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the
same insofar as the petitioner in concern.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and
others paid a sum of Rs.79,00,000/- to the petitioner's travel agency and agreed
to start the tour on 29.04.2019. While being so, the petitioner's travel agency
had given visa for few persons only and failed to take the air tickets for some
persons. When the defacto complainant and others asked their money back, the
petitioner and other accused persons failed to return the money and thereby
cheated them. Hence, the complaint.
3. 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.456 of 2019 for the offences under Section 420
of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to
file final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
5. Heard Mr.C.Sai Narayana Vasan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the first respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
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 quash
the First Information Report in Crime No.456 of 2019 on the file of the first
respondent Police. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Erode North Police Station,
Erode, Erode District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.22745 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.14574 of 2022
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
