Madras High Court
Ibrahim Batsha vs The State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.9373 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.9373 of 2025
1.Ibrahim Batsha
2.Sameera ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State rep.by Inspector of Police,
Mangalamedu Police Station,
Perambalur District. (Crime No.209 of 2018)
2. Mr. Mohamed Yousuf ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the
first respondent in F.I.R. No.209 of 2018 dated 30.04.2018 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr. S.N. Subramani
For Respondents : Mr. A. Gopinath, (for R1)
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.9373 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R.
No.209 of 2018 dated 30.04.2018 registered by the first respondent
police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324, 506(i) and
506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC) 1860, and Section 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Public Property (prevention of damage and loss), Act, 1992, as
against the petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the case is that there is a property dispute
between the petitioners and the defacto complainant regarding the land in
S.No.143/14, measuring 0.26.0 ares or 66 cents. The property originally
belonged to Mumtaj Begum and her sisters, who held joint patta. They
sold a portion about 4 ¾ cents to one Abubucker and transferred the
remaining land about 1 ½ cents to the defacto complainant through a
Settlement Deed executed by his mother. The defacto complainant has
been in possession since then. The petitioners appealed to the RDO to
cancel the joint patta stands in the name of the defacto complainant, but
it was rejected. Therefore, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
2016 in the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. On 26.03.2018, the
petitioners allegedly entered the property, attacked the defacto
complainant, and damaged his vehicles and items worth Rs.1 lakh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent
police registered a case in Crime No.209 of 2018, for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324, 506(i) and 506(ii) of the Indian
Penal Code, (IPC) 1860, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public
Property (prevention of damage and loss), Act, 1992, as against the
petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing
for the first respondent submitted that the investigation is almost
completed and the respondent police have only to file a final report in
this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against these petitioners to attract the offences,
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
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
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;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopedia 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
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
investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of
the year 2018, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.209 of 2018 and file a final report within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before
the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
10. With the above observations and direction, this Criminal
Original Petition stands dismissed.
28.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
klt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mangalamedu Police Station,
Perambalur District. (Crime No.209 of 2018)
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
klt
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 01:06:06 pm )
