Madras High Court
R.Sachchidanandam vs State Rep. By on 6 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.4013 of 2025
R.Sachchidanandam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (AWPS),
Uthangarai,
Krishnagiri District.
(Cr.No.27 of 2024)
2. Chitra ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to
call for the records in Cr.No.27 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Naresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in
Crime No.27 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the
second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information
Report in Crime No. 27 of 2024, alleging that the petitioner sexually
harassed the second respondent. Further, the petitioner is working as
Assistant Head Master in Kommampattu Panchayat Union Middle School,
and in the same school, the second respondent is working as a Teacher on
consolidated pay. Utilizing the said circumstances, the petitioner used to
sexually harass her. The petitioner and the Head Master of the said School
are husband and wife. While that being so, on 29.10.2024, the petitioner
tracked the second respondent to the Head Master's house. After reaching
the Head Master's house, the second respondent found that the Head Master
was not available in his house and only to harass her and commit sexual
abuse, she was brought to his house. Immediately, she called her husband,
and she was rescued from the petitioner. Hence, the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after
registering the First Information Report, there was a meeting of the School
teachers, and in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, they
concluded that no further proceedings can be taken against the petitioner. It
was also communicated to the Block Educational Officer. He would further
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.27 of 2024 for the offences
under Sections 75(1) (i), 75(1) (ii) and 78(1) (i) of BNS, 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 respondent police have only to
file final report.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
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. That apart, the petitioner committed very serious
offence as against the petitioner who is working as Temporary Staff. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
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: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
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, first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2024 and file a final report
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (AWPS),
Uthangarai,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kv
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:32 pm )
