Madras High Court
M. Selvaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 October, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7032 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) No. 7032 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 3334 of 2018
M. Selvaraj ... Petitioner/3rd accused
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
2. R. Kalarani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to
call for the records pertaining to Crime No.49 of 2014 on the file of the District
Crime Branch, Dindigul to quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned
as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Karuna
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi,
G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 49 of 2014 on the file of the Respondent police as against the petitioner.
1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7032 of 2018
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegation in the prosecution case is false. He would further submit that on verification of the FIR through online which clearly shows that the petitioner has not at all involved in the crime of offence as stated by the first respondent police. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 49 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 167, 218, 466, 469, 465, 120(b) of IPC as against the petitioner. 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 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. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7032 of 2018
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 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7032 of 2018 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 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 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7032 of 2018 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. The first respondent is also directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.10.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa To
1. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Crime Branch, Dindigul 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.7032 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No.7032 of 2018 30.10.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in