Madras High Court
S.Kalaimani vs State By: The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.12641 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.12641 of 2025
S.Kalaimani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State By: The Inspector of Police,
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.14 of 2024)
2. Anbarasan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (428 of Cr.P.C.), praying to call for
the FIR in Cr.No.14 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.1 Police Station
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 2024
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 341,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
294(b), 353 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2024 at 9.00 a.m.
when the second respondent/defacto complainant and his police party
conducted the patrol, the petitioner allegedly used an iron rod to scold the
actors and blocked vehicles and prevented the police from discharging duty and
criminally intimidated. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, a
case in Cr.No.14 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner.
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.14 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 341,
294(b), 353 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 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 has
only to file final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused
the materials placed on record.
6. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is a
habitual offender and has 7 previous cases against him. That apart, 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 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
) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
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
against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
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
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
.............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
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, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.14 of 2024 and file a final report within
a period of eight weeks 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.
25.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
1. The Inspector of Police,
Panruti Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 11:02:56 am )
