Madras High Court
Arasu @ Thirunavukkarasu vs The State Rep. By on 14 November, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.9615 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4272 of 2018
1.Arasu @ Thirunavukkarasu
2.Parthiban
3.Sudarshan ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Koodankulam Police Station
Tirunelveli District
2.Lingam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No. 111 of
2018 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi,
G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 111 of 2018 on the file first respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit 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. 111 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 420,465,467 and 471 of IPC as against the petitioners. Hence he 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, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4.Heard both sides and 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 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018 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 step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
6.It is also 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 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018 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.
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 has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018 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 respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned court within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav To
1.The The Inspector of Police Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9615 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
aav CRL.O.P (MD) No.9615 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4272 of 2018 14.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in