Madras High Court
Selvam vs The State Represented By on 1 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6921 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.6921 of 2022
and
CRL.M.P.No.4009 of 2022
1.Selvam
2.Manvizhi
3.Kanimozhi
4.Gayathri
5.Karthika
6.Sabari ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State represented by
the Inspector of Police,
Vaazhapadi Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.90 of 2021)
2.Saroja ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the FIR in
Crime No.90 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vaazhapadi
Police Station, Salem District and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
For R2 : Mr.F.Wellington
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.6921 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR
in Crime No. 90 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed
into the land of the second respondent and damaged the PVC water
pipeline. When it was questioned by the second respondent, the
petitioners abused and assaulted the second respondent's husband with
hands and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the
complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered
FIR in Crime No.90 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 447,
427, 323 and 506(i) of IPC.
5. It is seen that a counter case was also registered in Crime
No.91 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent herein. Further, there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are specific allegations as against the petitioner in order to attract the
offences under Sections 294(b), 447, 427, 323 and 506(i) of IPC.
6. In this regard, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 FIR in Crime No.427 of 2020 on the file of the first
respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. The first respondent is directed to conduct investigation by
following the Police Standing Order 588A and file final report within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.12.2023
Lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Vaazhapadi Police Station,
Salem District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
and
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
