Dismissed

Chandrika Compley v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Apr 2019CRL OP/1801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Section 363 IPC, holding that FIR disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offence warranting investigation. Court directed police to complete investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; police directed to complete investigation and file final report within three months.

Chandrika Compley Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.OP.No.1801 of 2019

¶6

and CRL.M.P.Nos.1095 & 3474 of 2019

¶7

1.Chandrika Compely 2.Kumar Singh. K.R.

¶8

... Petitioners Vs. 1.State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District, Crime No.366/2018

¶9

2.K.Panivalavan

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners in FIR in Crime No.366 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sairaman

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

M/s.Muthumoni Dosaisami, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Kandhan Duraisami for R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.366 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶17

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are an innocent person 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.366 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 363 of IPC, as

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶20

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

¶21

4.Heard, Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent and M/s.Muthumoni Dosaisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there is a 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.

¶23

6.In the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

¶24

"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.

¶25

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

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

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.

¶28

...................... 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."

¶29

7.In view of the above discussion and judgment cited supra, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. However, considering the crime is of the year 2018, the respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.366 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.

¶30

8.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

pam

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No.366/2018

¶35

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai-104.

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.S.Sairaman, Advocate sr 42663. +1 CC to M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate sr 41805.

¶37

CRL.OP.No.1801 of 2019
and CRL.M.P.Nos.1095 & 3474 of 2019
AD(CO)
SP(13/05/2019)

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Chandrika Compley v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Compley v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siva Shankar Reddy Vs the State Rep by Its

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Abhishek Vs State Rep by

R. Sivasubramaniam Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathi, S/O.Selvam, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Meharaj Vs State Represented by