Madras High Court
C.Rajkumar vs State on 27 November, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.23260 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.23260 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.14849 of 2022
C.Rajkumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State:-
The Inspector of Police,
S-11, Tambaram Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.247 of 2022)
2. V.Arivudai Nambi
Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o, RDO Office,
Tambaram, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to
call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.247 of 2022 pending on
the file of the Inspector of Police, S-11, Tambaram Police Station,
Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Emalias
for Mr.V.C.Vinoth Kumar
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23260 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.247 of 2022 on the file of first respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2022, the defacto
complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent alleging that
the petitioner had passed an order in Na.Ka.705/2018/A dated
12.07.2019 related to the lands in S.Nos.520/1, 520/2 and 521. The said
order was found missing in the office. The said order was also challenged
in W.A.No.177 of 2021 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated
20.09.2021, ordered to conduct an enquiry and to take action on the
erring officials. Accordingly, one S.Nagarajan, I.A.S., Commissioner of
Land Administration in his order dated 07.02.2022, directed to take
criminal action as against the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR
in Crime No.247 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 471 and 477 IPC.
5. It is seen that as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court, the Commissioner of Land Administration had conduced a
detailed enquiry and submitted his report. As per the report, the order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was cancelled and also
suspended him from service. Now, the disciplinary proceedings is under
progress against him. On the said report, the criminal complaint was
lodged by the second respondent and the first respondent registered FIR.
Therefore, this Court finds no grounds to quash the FIR.
6. That apart, the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in its threshold. This Court
finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable
offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and
unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the
Code.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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."
8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The first
respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.247 of
2022 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27.11.2023
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
S-11, Tambaram Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
and
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
