Madras High Court
T.Kalidass vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 May, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.05.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.IlANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.6623 of 2023
T.Kalidass ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Egmore Police Station,
Chennai District.
2.R.Vivekkumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Egmore, Police Station, and Chennai and to quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran for Mr.R.Rajadurai
For R-1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to
the FIR in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Egmore, Police Station, Chennai and to quash the same.
2. 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.266 of 2022 for the offences under Section 420,
IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit
that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only
to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran appearing on behalf of Mr.R.Rajadurai,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned
Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
5. 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.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
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 justification for
the High Court to interfere.
......................
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
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."
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.266 of 2022 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Egmore, Police Station, Chennai. Accordingly, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.05.2023
gd
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Egmore Police Station,
Chennai District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
G.K.IlANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gd
Crl.O.P.No.10085 of 2023
04.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
