Madras High Court
M.Devnamathur vs State Represented By on 21 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.20050 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.20050 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.13164 of 2022
M.Devnamathur ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
E2 Reddiarpalayam Police Station,
Puducherry District.
Crime No.71 of 2022.
2. D.SaurabVerma ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.71
of 2022, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 511 and 384 of IPC,
pending on the file of first respondent, as illegal, unjust in the eyes of law and
pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court is deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of this case.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath
For R1 : Mr.P.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
For R2 : Mr.R.Udhayakumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in pursuant
to the FIR in Crime No.71 of 2022, for the alleged offences under Sections
448, 511 and 384 of IPC, pending on the file of first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a lady aged
about 30 years, hails from Madhya Pradesh and the defacto complainant is
working as Inspector in GST Central Excise Commissionerate. The defacto
complainant and the petitioner got acquaintance with each other through a
Matrimonial Website. Subsequently, they used to chat through Whatsapp.
While so, the petitioner gave love proposal to the defacto complainant and the
same was refused by the defacto complainant. However, the petitioner used to
continuously torture the defacto complainant and she also threatened him that
she will commit suicide. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 448,
511 and 384 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) would submit that
the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to
file final report.
5. Heard Mr.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Mr.P.Balamurugane, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)
appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel
appearing for the second 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
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.71 of 2022 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 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.20050 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
E2 Reddiarpalayam Police Station,
Puducherry District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.20050 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.13164 of 2022
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
