Madras High Court
Goguldevan vs State Represented By on 23 April, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:23.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.5489 of 2019
GogulDevan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police
J-1, Saidapet Police Station
Saidapet, Chennai 600 016.
(Cr.No.127 of 2019)
2.P.Tamilarasan
Conductor (C57768)
MTC (Metropolitan Transport Corporation)
Chromepet Depo,
Chennai 600 044. ...Respondents
PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the FIR dated
22.03.2019 in Crime No.127 of 2019 pending on the file of the
respondent Police as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mohanraj
For Respondents : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the FIR dated 22.03.2019 in Crime No.127 of 2019 pending on the file of the respondent Police as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Bus Conductor, who gave a complaint before the respondent police on 22.03.2019 stating that he is the conductor of the Bus Route No.60D from Pammal to Broadway. While he was on duty and running the bus from Pammal, two college students were travelling on the bus on the foot board and when he warned them and produced them to the Meenambakkam Police and while he was returning from Broadway the said two students Saravanan and Krishnan along with other two students have waylaid the bus at the YMCA junction and assaulted him and threatened him. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent police have registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.127 of 2019 for the offences u/s.341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 353 IPC.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's name is not found in the complaint and he is not a http://www.judis.nic.in 3 named accused in the F.I.R. Even the defacto complainant stated only the other two students have waylaid the bus and attacked the complainant. The petitioner is residing in Vettuvankanni in ECR and his bus route is different. Only based on the confession statement of the main accused, the petitioner was included an an accused. Accordingly, prays for appropriate relief.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there is a specific allegation as against the petitioner, 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 5 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 6 the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
7.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. However, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.127 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed.
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
23.04.2019 kas Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order
1.The Inspector of Police J-1, Saidapet Police Station Saidapet, Chennai 600 016.
(Cr.No.127 of 2019)
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kas http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Crl.O.P.No.10679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.5489 of 2019 23.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in