Madras High Court
Karthik Seethamraju vs State on 25 April, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2556 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.1804 of 2017
Karthik Seethamraju ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State, represented by;
The Inspector of Police (Crimes),
R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station (Crimes),
Chennai. (Crime No.213/2013).
2. U.Krishna Chaitanya ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC., to call for the
entire records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.213/2013, pending on the file of
the Inspector of Police, R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station (Crimes), Chennai and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson
For Respondent-1 :Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent-2 : No Appearance
-----
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.213/2013, pending on the file of the first respondent http://www.judis.nic.in police.
2
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.213 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 420 IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police.
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 into investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, 4 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 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 petitioner is directed to produce all the relevant documents and materials placed before the first respondent police. After receipt of the same, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.213 of 2013 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.04.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order msm To
1. The Inspector of Police (Crimes), R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station (Crimes), Chennai. (Crime No.213/2013).
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
msm Crl.O.P.No.2556 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.1804 of 2017 25.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in