Madras High Court
Selvam vs The State Rep. By on 21 July, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020
and Crl.MP.No.1052 of 2020
1. Selvam
S/o.Chinna
2. Anjaneyan
S/o.Selvam
3. Ramesh
S/o.Selvam
4. Jeyalakshmi
W/o.Selvam
5. Sujatha
D/o.Selvam
All are residing at
Adhipomanur Village,
Nattrampalli, Vellore District. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Nattrampalli Police Station, Vellore,
Crime No.106 of 2014.
2. Rathidevi,
D/o.Munusamy,
Adhipomanur Village,
Nattrampalli, Vellore District. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.106 of 2014 on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Nattrampalli Police Station, Vellore District and to
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.C.Karl Marx
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nattrampalli Police Station, Vellore District police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, as against the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are an innocent 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.106 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report. It is further submitted that a counter case has been filed by the petitioners herein as against the de-facto complainant, which was registered in Crime No.107 of 2014.
4. Heard Mr.K.C.Karl Marx, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which have 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 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. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020
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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020 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 contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020 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 discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2014 and a counter complaint has been lodged by the petitioners herein as against the de-facto complainant, the first respondent Police is directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Police Standing Order 588A and complete the investigation and file final report within a period of eight weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order pvs http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020 To
1. The Inspector of Police, Nattrampalli Police Station, Vellore,
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
pvs Crl.O.P.No.1672 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.1052 of 2020 21.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8