Madras High Court
S.Sankar vs State By on 25 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 8792 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.5811 of 2025
S.Sankar .... Petitioner
Vs
State by
1. The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Tiruvallur,
Tiruvallur District.
(Cr.No.1 of 2024)
2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Ponneri Circle,
Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District. .... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records
concerned in Cr.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Ecoomic Offence Wing, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District and quash the
same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
FIR registered in Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent
police for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, 471, 477A of
IPC r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner,
along with three other employees, jointly committed irregularities in
respect of issuance of loans and savings bank accounts. Based on this,
the defacto complainant ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil
Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Based on the enquiry report, the defacto
complainant filed a complaint alleging that the employees of the Minjur
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society committed irregularities
and caused loss more than Rs.1.15 crores.
3.?The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
was appointed as a Clerk at J.J.110, Minjur Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society, Minjur – 601203, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur
District, on 27.10.1993. He was later promoted to the post of Secretary on
01.03.2018. During his tenure as Secretary, the day-to-day affairs of the
Society, including sanctioning of agricultural loans to members, were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
managed by the Elected Board of Directors. He further submitted that 32
members of the Society availed crop loan to the tune of Rs.3,33,88,000/-
Out of these, 26 members repaid a total of Rs.2,81,44,076/-, which was
credited to the District Central Cooperative Bank. The remaining amount
was waived under the Tamil Nadu Government's loan waiver scheme,
based on the recommendation of a high-level committee constituted for
this purpose. The defacto complainant was also a member of this
committee. After scrutinizing the records, the committee recommended
the waiver, and the loan amount was accordingly waived. He further
submitted that the beneficiaries have now repaid the entire amount.
Therefore, the repayment of the entire loan amount renders the
proceedings unnecessary.
4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
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 facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
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.
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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
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 agency/police to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
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, the first respondent is
directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1 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.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Tiruvallur,
Tiruvallur District.
(Cr.No.1 of 2024)
2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Ponneri Circle,
Ponneri,
Tiruvallur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:27:51 pm )
