Madras High Court
Rishi Bhandari vs State Rep By on 7 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 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.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4130, 4133 & 4135 of 2025
Rishi Bhandari ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6471/2025
Sushil Shah ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6475/2025
Hemant Varma ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6478/2025
Vs
1.State Rep By,
Inspector of Police,
P5, Otteri Police Station,
Otteri,
Chennai.
2.Thirunavukarasu ..... Respondents in all Crl.OPs
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for
the records and quash the FIR in Crime No. 240 of 2024 dated
04.05.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P5, Otteri Police
station, Otteri.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Madhuprakash in all Crl.OPs
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan in all Crl.OPs
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to
quash the FIR registered in Crime No.240 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent police, for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 354C, 268,
287, 294(b), 336, 441, 506(1) of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first
respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
3. All the petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.240 of 2024. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a
common order.
4. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent,
the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2024 for the
offences under Sections 143, 188, 354C, 268, 287, 294(b), 336, 441,
506(1) of IPC as against the accused persons. It is alleged by the second
respondent that while the second respondent was serving as a security,
the accused has operated a drone camera near the residential area where
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
women were residing. The women allegedly felt threatened as it was
claimed that the accused had captured video footage using the drone
camera. When it was questioned by the second respondent, the accused
abused him using filthy language and threatened him with dire
consequences.
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 the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
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. ....................
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
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; .......”
8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not
inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.240 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.240 of 2024 and file a final report within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
9. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
P5, Otteri Police Station,
Otteri,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/05/2025 02:22:48 pm )
