Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs State Rep.By on 10 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.3481 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3481 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.2289 of 2025
Selvaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State Rep.By
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch I,
Land Fraud Investigation Wing-1,
Team-17, Vepery, Chennai.
Cr.No.275 of 2023
2. Geetha Padmanabhan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in
Crime No.275 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Govindaprabu
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.275
of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.
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's
grandmother one Padmasini Ammal owned a property at No.42, Gengu
Reddy Road, Egmore, Chennai. After the death of the said Padmasini
Ammal, her legal heirs owned the property. The defacto complainant is
the second daughter of one of the legal heirs of the said Padmasini
Ammal. The petitioner was a tenant in the said property. It is alleged that
the petitioner had fraudulently created a settlement deed in respect of the
subject property by impersonating the said Padmasini Ammal in favour
of him. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent Police registered
FIR in Crime No.275 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections
419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of IPC.
5. 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 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.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
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 not open to the
Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
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.
7. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
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: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined
to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.275 of 2023 on the
file of the first respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition
is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch I,
Land Fraud Investigation Wing-1,
Team-17, Vepery, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
10.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 01:24:08 pm )
