Dismissed

V.M.Kothandaraman v. State by

Madras HC24 Apr 2019CRL OP/26945/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition to quash a police FIR under IPC sections. The court held the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and could not be quashed at the threshold. The court directed the police to file a final report within four weeks and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; FIR not quashed; directions to file final report within four weeks.

V.M.Kothandaraman Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26945 of 2015

¶6

and Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

V.M.Kothandaraman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by Station House Officer,
Mangalam Police Station,
Puducherry.
(Crime No.90 of 2015)
2. S.Swaminathan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No.90 of 2015 on
the file of 1 st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran
For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Additional Public Prosecutor
(Puducherry)

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.90 of 2015 on the file of 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶10

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 143, 109, 447, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w 149 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Heard Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent police.

¶14

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 in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

¶15

Further, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:

¶16

"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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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."

¶21

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to file a final report in respect of Crime No.90 of 2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶22

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

-s/d-

¶24

Assistant Registrar

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

ssr

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Station House Officer, Mangalam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

¶31

+1 CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennnai Sr.No.40192
Crl.O.P.No.26945 of 2015
and Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015
SVI(CO)
KP(31/05/2019)

¶32

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

V.M.Kothandaraman v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Kothandaraman v. State 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

S.Karupaiya Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Kalyanithevar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S.Kiran, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

M.Velu Vs State by

S.Shankaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Sathyan, Vs the Station House Officer