Madras High Court

Rakesh Agarwal vs The State By Its on 12 March, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                            Crl. O.P. No. 7017 of 2025


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 12.03.2025

                                                               CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl. O.P. No. 7017 of 2025
                                                             and
                                                  Crl. M.P. No. 4483 of 2025

                 Rakesh Agarwal                                                             ... Petitioner
                                                                    Vs

                 1.The State by its
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   P5 Otteri Police Station,
                   Otteri, Chennai.

                 2.Thirunavukarasu                                                          ... Respondents

                 PRAYER:              Criminal Original Petition is 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 first
                 respondent police.
                                            For Petitioner        : Mr. M. Madhuprakash
                                            For Respondents : Mr. A. Gopinath, for R1
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )

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. 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 petitioner and other 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 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )

4. 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 its 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 into investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance

with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

5. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )

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 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.

6. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )

agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

7. 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, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already

filed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.03.2025 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No AT

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )