Madras High Court
Thangavelu vs The State Represented By on 24 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 12380 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.12380 of 2025
Thangavelu ..... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-II,
Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.4 of 2024).
2. Ramakrishnan ..... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of
Crime No.4 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Simon
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.Mohanraj.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to
quash the FIR registered in Crime No.4 of 2024 on the file of the
respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 executed a power
of attorney in favour of A2 in respect of the property comprised in
Survey Nos.31/3, 31/4, admeasuring 4400 sq.ft, situated at Plot Nos.70 &
71, Chinnavedampatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk, by impersonating the
original owner, viz, Ramakrishnan. The said power of attorney was
registered vide Document No.6643 of 2022 with A3 & A4 were shown
as witnesses. On the strength of the said power of attorney, A2 executed
a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. He further submitted that he has no way
connected to the offences as alleged by the prosecution. He specifically
contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the first respondent police submitted that based on the complaint, an
FIR was registered in Crime No.4 of 2024 for the offences under
Sections 120(B), 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC. He further
submitted that the investigation is still pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the records reveals that, pending complaint,
the petitioner executed the sale deed in respect of part of the property,
which was purchased by him. Further, there are specific allegations as
against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 120(B), 419,
465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC.
7. 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 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. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate,
grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed
in the Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
8. 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 ) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
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 against the
accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
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
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
10. 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.4 of
2024 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed.
24.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-II,
Coimbatore City.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
24.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
