Madras High Court
V. Saraswathi vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 November, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 10271 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 4582 of 2018
1. V. Saraswathi
2. V. Amutha Priya
3. Hema Sudha ... petitioners/A2 to A4
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thirumangalam Nagar Police Station,
Thirumangalam, Madurai.
(Crime No. 376 of 2014)
2. Hemamathabai ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No. 376 of 2014 dated
28.07.2014 on the file of the first respondent for offences under Sections
294(b), 323, 354, 465, 502, 379 of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Women Harassment Act and quash the same as illegal and as against the
petitioners.
For petitioners : Mr.T. Lajapathiroy
For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R-2 : Mr.M. Jayaraman
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 376 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police as against the http://www.judis.nic.in 2 petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 465, 502, 379 of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioners in Crime No. 376 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 465, 502, 379 of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. Hence they prayed to quash the same.
3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, they prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Perused the materials available on record.
5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 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.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 - 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 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.
6.........
7.........
8........
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 http://www.judis.nic.in 5 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 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."
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
26.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ksa To
1. The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Nagar Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 10271 of 2018 26.11.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in