Madras High Court
D.Yuvaraj Pandian vs The Superintendent Of Police on 11 February, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1418 of 2022
1.D.Yuvaraj Pandian
2.M.Dhandapani ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Reddiyarchatram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.M.Kalimuthu ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the First Information Report in
Crime No.634 of 2021 on the file of the second respondent / complainant
and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : M/s.R.M.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.634 of 2021 on the file of the second respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner is working as a Assistant Manager in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and he has threatened the defacto complainant with support of other accused persons, to hand over the land to him. He criminally intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Therefore, the defacto complainant has given a complaint before the first respondent police and based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.634 of 2021 has been registered.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are 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. 634 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners and others. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022
4.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, 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.
7.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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court was right in setting aside the order by 3/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022 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 that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022 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 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022
8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.02.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No cp Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, cp Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1947 of 2022 11.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7