Madras High Court

Dinesh @ Sundarrajan vs State Rep. By on 1 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.9594 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.9594 of 2025
                                                             and
                                                   Crl.M.P.No.6352 of 2025

                     Dinesh @ Sundarrajan                                                     ... Petitioner

                                                                  Vs

                     1. State Rep. by
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Thirukoilur Police Station,
                        Kallakurichi District,
                        Tamil Nadu.

                     2. Anantha Jothi                                                     ... Respondents

                                  Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S.,
                     to call for the records in Crime No.430 of 2024 on the file of the Thirukoilur
                     Police Station and QUASH the same.

                                  For Petitioner        : Mr.S.Kumaresan

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




                     1/9




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )
                                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.9594 of 2025

                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.430 of

2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences punishable under

Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the second

respondent/de-facto complainant, viz., Ranganathan, while travelling as a

pillion rider in Yamaha Bike bearing Registration No. TN15F8632 driven by

one Vishnu, the petitioner/accused, who is travelling in his bike, viz., Pulsar

bearing Registration No. TN10AQ8960, in the opposite road caused an

accident with them, which resulted in injury to the said Ranganathan and

Vishnu. Hence, the de-facto complainant made complaint and FIR was

lodged for the alleged offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

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

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

police registered a case in Crime No.430 of 2024 for the offences

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, as against the petitioner.

Hence, he prayed to quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would

submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent

police have only to file 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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

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

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

as follows:-

“23. ....................

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

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

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, the first respondent is directed

to complete the investigation in Crime No.430 of 2024 and file a final report

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of 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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 04:28:10 pm )

1. The Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Kallakurichi District, Tamil Nadu.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.