Madras High Court
V.S.Muthuramasamy vs The Rep By on 7 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.1331 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.1331 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.740 of 2025
V.S.Muthuramasamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gopichettypayalam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Gopichettipalayam Police Station.
(in Cr.No.597/2024)
3. M.Prabha ... Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.597/2024 on the file of the 2 nd respondent
police dated 16.11.2024 and quash the final report.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1 & R2)
Mr.B.Mohan (for R3)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.1331 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in
in Crime No.597 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent police.
2. On the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the first
respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No. 597 of
2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2),
305, 324(4), and 351(2) of BNS r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va)
of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, alleging that the third
respondent had executed a sale deed in respect of her house in the year 2014
in favour of the petitioner on the borrowed loan on the condition that when
the third respondent returned the entire loan amount, the petitioner shall
have to re-convey the said house property in favour of the third respondent.
The possession of the said house was also not handed over to the petitioner
at the time of execution of the sale deed. After repayment of the entire loan
amount along with interest, when the third respondent insisted that the
petitioner re-convey the property, the petitioner refused to do so. That apart,
on 16.11.2024, the petitioner, along with his henchmen, went to the house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
of the third respondent and ransacked the entire house and also attacked the
family members of the third respondent. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale
deed was executed in the year 2014 by the third respondent in favour of the
petitioner. In fact, the petitioner and the third respondent were working in
the same school as teachers, and while the third respondent cheated the
general public while conducting a chit, the petitioner only helped by giving
a huge amount of money. Therefore, the third respondent had executed the
sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2014, and there was no
condition to re-convey the said property after repaying the entire loan
amount. Therefore, no offences are made out as against the petitioner. He
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
second respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 597 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 305, 324(4), and
351(2) of BNS r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, as against the petitioner. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first and second respondents 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.
6. On a perusal of the First Information Report, it reveals that there
are specific allegations as against the petitioner, that the petitioner assured
to re-convey the property after repayment of the entire loan borrowed by the
third respondent. Further, since the third respondent is in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property, it shows that there was an undertaking by
the petitioner to re-convey the house property after repayment of the entire
loan amount. When the third respondent refused to vacate the house, the
petitioner went to the house of the third respondent and ransacked the entire
house. Therefore, all the offences are clearly attracted as against the
petitioner, and there is absolutely no ground to quash the First Information
Report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
7. 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.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
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.
9. 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 :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
“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;
.............
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
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; .......”
10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. However, the second respondent is
directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.597 of 2024 and file a
final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gopichettypalayam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Gopichettipalayam Police Station.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kv
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:30 pm )
