Madras High Court
I.Sathyanathan vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 July, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.211 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2020
1. I.Sathyanathan,
S/o.B.I.Nathan
2. S.Suresh,
S/o.I.Sathyanathan,
Door No.6/1, Plot No.1,
Nethaji Colony, 2nd Main Road,
Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Team-4 EDF-II,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. Mr.Chandrasekaran.M,
S/o.Malayappan,
New No.28 (15/17), Ajays Thulasi,
3rd Cross Street, R.K.Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records relating to FIR No.341 of 2019 pending on the
file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-4, EDF-II, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007 and quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Ramachandran
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.341 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 420, 506(i) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons 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.341 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 506(i) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, as against the petitioners. 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020
4. Heard Mr.T.Ramachandran, 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 has 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.
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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020 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 ingredients of the offence are disclosed, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020 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 First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020 dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.341 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb To
1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-4 EDF-II, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.211 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
arb Crl.O.P.No.211 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2020 27.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7