Madras High Court
Ramesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 1 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.7030 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.7030 of 2022
and
CRL.M.P.No.3981 of 2022
Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
Omerabad Police Station,
Thirupathur District.
2.Chakaravarthi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to a case in Crime
No.330 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR
in Crime No. 330 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent,
who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner, lodged a
complaint alleging that the petitioner got married to his daughter. Due to
wedlock, they gave birth to two children. Due to misunderstanding, they
got separated and a matrimonial proceeding is going on in Australia.
Further it is alleged that the petitioner, along with other persons,
approached the second respondent and his wife for taking custody of the
children. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered
FIR in Crime No.330 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and
323 of IPC.
5. It is seen that a counter case was also registered in Crime
No.329 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent herein. Further, there
are specific allegations as against the petitioner in order to attract the
offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC.
6. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High
Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.330 of 2021 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 eight 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,
Omerabad Police Station,
Thirupathur District.
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
