Madras High Court
S.Sasidharan vs State By on 21 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.4726 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4726 of 2025
S.Sasidharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by
1. Inspector of Police,
Natrampalli Police Station,
Tirupattur District.
(Crime No. 773/2020)
2. Tamilarasan .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records in
connection with FIR registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and
506(ii) of IPC in Crime No. 773/2020 pending on the file of the 1 st respondent
in respect of petitioner only and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.4726 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.773 of 2020
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147,
294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner submits that the
defacto complainant has lodged a complaint stating that on 27.04.2020, at
about 7:30 a.m., when he was at his home, the petitioner herein dumped waste
in front of his house. The place belongs to the 2nd respondent's father, so the
2nd respondent asked the petitioner about the act, for which the petitioner gave
an evasive reply and scolded him in abusive language. He also called his
friends, namely, Ravi, son of Manicam, Surendiran, Parthiban, Muthu and
Nandakumar. When they were holding the defacto complainant, the petitioner
tried to attack him with an Aruval and he escaped with a simple injury on his
left head. Then, the petitioner assaulted his mother by pulling her saree and
also attacked her all over her body with his hands. The petitioner also assaulted
the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and made a criminal intimidation
with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.773 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 147,
294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed
to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to
file final report.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year
2020, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime
No.773 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
already filed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Natrampalli Police Station,
Tirupattur District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
