Madras High Court

Pushpalatha vs The State Rep. By on 1 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.9619 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 01.04.2025

                                                              CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.9619 of 2025
                                                             and
                                                   Crl.M.P.No.6361 of 2025

                     Pushpalatha                                                             ... Petitioner

                                                                  Vs

                     1. The State rep. By
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Kattur Police Station,
                        Coimbatore City,
                        Coimbatore District.
                        (Crime No.361 of 2023)

                     2. S.Saravanan                                                       ... Respondents

                                  Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S.,
                     to call for the records in Crime No.361 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 on the file
                     of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioner.

                                  For Petitioner        : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

                                  For Respondents       : Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R1)



                     1/9




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )
                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.9619 of 2025

                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.361 of

2023 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections

4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as against

the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is

the native of Nagapattinam and running a Petty Shop near Gandhipuram

Central Bus Stand and staying in Gandhipuram 3rd Street. On the said day of

occurrence, when the de-facto complainant went to Medical Shop seeking

pills for body pain, the first accused, viz., Sujis, had told him that body pain

would not get cured by pills and has taken him to The Grand Beauty Spa in

Room No. 108, Kaaliappa Lodge, Oppossite to Chennai Silks, Cross Cut

Road. In that Lodge, the first accused had informed the second and third

accused, who were his colleagues, to introduce the de-facto complainant to

one Radha. When the said Radha approached the de-facto complainant for

prostitution, the de-facto complainant left that Lodge by stating that he

would bring money. Hence, the de-facto complainant made a complaint and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

FIR was lodged for the alleged offences under Sections 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d)

of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is an innocent person and she did not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.361 of 2023 for the offences under

Sections 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956,

as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would

submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent

police is yet to final report.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and

perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

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.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in

2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The

State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019)

held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is

required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance

of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning

the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the

merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the

Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials

would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not

disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the

allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which

cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for

quashment. Therefore, 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 to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not

open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the

contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal

complaint 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. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in

the judgement reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of

M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

as follows :-

“23. ....................

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

..............

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

.............

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to

quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the

year 2023, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in

Crime No.361 of 2023 and file a final report within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the jurisdiction

Magistrate, if not already filed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

01.04.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:39 pm )

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation/Yes/No kv

1. The Inspector of Police, Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.