Madras High Court
N.Karnal vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 May, 2023
CRL.O.P.No.9923 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.9923 of 2023 &
Crl.M.P.No.6523 of 2023
1.N.Karnal
2.K.Samuel
3.R.Prema
4.A.Murthy ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (ALGSC),
Vellore, Vellore District. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.K.Jawarilal Jain ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in Cr.No.14 of 2021 dated 18.10.2022 on the file
of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent 1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 2021
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120B,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
420, 448, 465, 446, 466, 468, 471, 474, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC, as against the
petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are arrayed as
accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively. They fabricated documents for the property
owned by the defacto complainant and also impersonated the defacto
complainant and executed a power of attorney. They also trespassed into the
property and threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the second
respondent/Defacto complaint launched the complaint.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the final report is yet to be filed.
4. There is no representation on the side of the petitioners. Heard
Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the
first respondent.
5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, which has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
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.
......................
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.05.2023
nl
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (ALGSC),
Vellore, Vellore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
nl
Crl.O.P.No.9923 of 2023
04.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
