Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs K.S.Ravichandran on 17 October, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAD HIGH COURT
DATED:17.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.1671 and 1672 of 2019
1. Venkatesan
2. Subhasini ... Petitioners
Vs.
K.S.Ravichandran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to Call
for the records in C.C.No.442 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate,Rajapalayam and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent :Mr.S.Ramasamy
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.442 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Rajapalayam, as against this petitioners
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the learned Judicial Magistrate, http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 Rajapalayam has taken cognizance of the private complaint in C.C.No.442 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 120(b),294(b),341,379,403,427,4471,461,465,468 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. Heard Mr.D.Rameshkumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. It is seen from the complaint that there is a specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. 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 for the High Court to interfere.
......................
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints 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."
It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 proceedings in C.C.No.442 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Rajapalayam. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD)No.1671 of 2019 is closed and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1671 of 2019 stands ordered. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
7. Further, the personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
17.10.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order aav To The Judicial Magistrate,Rajapalayam http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
aav Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3010 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.1671 and 1672 of 2019 17.10.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6