Madras High Court
R.S.Rajesh vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 24 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 12511 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.12511 of 2025
R.S.Rajesh ..... Petitioner
Vs
1. State rep by the Inspector of Police,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Washermentpet, Chennai.
(Crime No.56 of 2023)
2. Tamilselvan ..... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the
petitioner in Crime No. 56 of 2023, pending on the file of the first respondent
and pass such other necessary orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
FIR registered in Crime No.56 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto
complainant was travelling towards Thiyagaraya College, the petitioner, along
with other party members, had assembled to distribute offerings on the occasion
of 75th birthday anniversary of their former party leader. It is alleged that the
petitioner and others caused inconvenience and disturbance by playing loud
music, thereby annoying the general public. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the sole
ground of limitation for quashing the FIR. He further submitted that all the
offences are punishable with a maximum imprisonment of six months. The FIR
has been registered on 05.03.2023. However, the first respondent has neither
completed the investigation nor filed the final report.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent submitted based on the complaint, the first respondent
registered an FIR in Crime No.56 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 143,
285, 290, 336, 505(2) of IPC, Sections 41(6)(a), 71(xi), 71(xv) of the Tamil
Nadu City Poilice Act, 1888, Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 2005 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
Damange and Loss) Act, 1992. He further submitted that the investigation is
under progress.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
6. Insofar as the offence under Section 505(ii) of IPC is concerned,
it is punishable with three years imprisonment. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the prosecution is barred by limitation. Further, the petitioner is a habitual
offence and there are six previous cases pending against him, which are as
follows :
S.No Crime No. & Section Stage
IPC and 41(i)(b) CP Act
IPC & 71 (XI) CP Act
336, 505(2) IPC & 41(6) & 71(xi) & 71
(xv) CP Act, 7(1)(a) CLA Act & 4 of TN
Open Place of Disfigurement Act
BNS Act and 41(6) CP Act
7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 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 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 06:21:45 pm )
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
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.56 of 2023 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station,
Washermentpet, Chennai.
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 )
