Madras High Court
Selvakumar @ Selvam vs The State on 1 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6113 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.6113 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.3413 of 2022
Selvakumar @ Selvam ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Royapuram Police Station,
Washermenpet,
Chennai.
2.Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.52 of 2021 on
the file of the 1st Respondent Police insofar as the petitioner is concern.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR
in Crime No.52 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent.
3. The crux of the allegation is that the second respondent was
induced by the petitioner to rice business and the petitioner invested huge
money. As per the understanding, the petitioner was to export rice to
Singapore. The petitioner is running a partnership firm along with
another partner. After receipt of the entire amount, without informing
anything to the second respondent, they exported rice to a foreign
company, thereby they cheated the second respondent. Hence, the
complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered
an FIR in Crime No.52 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 417 and
506(i) of IPC.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate the
complaint. That apart, already the second respondent lodged a complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as against the foreign company and the same was registered in Crime
No.68 of 2021 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. The
entire transactions are commercial in nature, though, no offence has made
out as against the petitioner. That apart, the second respondent has been
also lodged a complaint without adding the partnership firm as an
accused. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable.
6. A perusal of the records reveals that admittedly, the second
respondent invested money with the petitioner to do rice business. The
petitioner also assured to return the money with profit. However, the
petitioner herein was to export rice to foreign company. Thereafter, they
failed to return the money with any profit. In fact, the second respondent
is very much living within the jurisdiction of the first respondent.
Therefore, the first respondent has got jurisdiction to investigate the
matter. Though the second respondent invested huge money with the
petitioner, it would amount to a commercial transaction. The said amount
was invested for business with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner
failed to share any profit and also without informing anything to the
second respondent, the petitioner along with his partner exported rice to
the companies in abroad. In fact, the petitioner's partner already paid a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sum of Rs.8 lakhs as his share to the second respondent and filed a quash
petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.1210 of 2022 and this Court, by
an order dated 03.07.2023, directed the first respondent, while filing the
final report, to delete the name of the another partner of the partnership
firm.
7. 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.
8. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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."
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.52 of 2021 on the file of the first
respondent Police. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. The first respondent is directed to 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,
Royapuram Police Station,
Washermenpet,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
