Madras High Court
L.Palaniappan vs The State Rep. By on 15 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.8629 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.8629 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.5653 of 2025
L.Palaniappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
SRMC-AWPS Police Station,
Avadi, Chennai.
(Crime No.18 of 2023
2. Ruby Jenitha Evangeline ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to
the case registered in First Information Report in Crime No.18 of 2023 dated
30.12.2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Ms. Gayathri Vasudevan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
CRL.O.P.No.8629 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 18 of 2023
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A),
420, 313 & 494 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent fell in
love with the petitioner and got married on 04.10.2019 in the Sub Registrar
Officer, Purasaiwalkam, without the consent and knowledge of both their
parents. It is alleged that in the guise of love marriage, the petitioner cheated
the second respondent on monetary basis and also caused miscarriages. Further
the petitioner remarried another lady without obtaining divorce from the second
respondent. Hence the complaint.
3. 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. 18 of 2023 for the offences under Sections
498(A), 420, 313 & 494 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent police would submit that the investigation is almost completed and
the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed 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 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 passed 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
) 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 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 no 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
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 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 fourth respondent is directed to complete the investigation in
Crime No. 18 of 2023 and file a final report within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if
not already filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
SRMC-AWPS Police Station,
Avadi, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:56:18 pm )
