Madras High Court
Saravannan vs State Rep By on 30 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.9426 of 2025
Saravannan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
CCB-I, Police Station,
Chennai District.
Crime No.129 of 2024
2. Parameswari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records
relating to the Crime No.129 of 2024 on the file of first respondent and to
quash the same
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lawrence Jeevakumar
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.129 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the
owner of the land comprised in S.No.133/3B in Ernavoor Village, Thiruvattiyur
Taluk, North Chennai. It is alleged that A1 created a general Power of Attorney
in his favour vide Document No.2582 of 2017 dated 05.05.2017. On the
strength of the General Power of Attorney, A1 executed the sale deed in favour
of the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.129 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B and 34 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is arrayed as A2. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the
petitioner is a innocent purchaser and he has nothing to do with the offences as
alleged by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
6. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5738 of 2025, by an order dated
07.03.2025. This Court specifically directed the petitioner to comply with the
undertaking affidavit filed before this Court, within a period of eight weeks.
7. A perusal of the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner
revealed that the petitioner undertakes to cancel the sale deed executed in his
favour. However, no cancellation of sale deed has been executed by the
petitioner so far.
8. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the accused to
constitute the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
447, 120B and 34 of IPC. That apart, now, it is in FIR stage, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
procedures prescribed in the Code.
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
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.
10. 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. .................... 7
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
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
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2024, on the file of the
respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation
in Crime No.129 of 2024, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.04.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
CCB-I, Police Station,
Chennai District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 08:32:36 pm )
