The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registering offences under Sections 420 and 334 IPC. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and directed investigation completion within three months.
Petition dismissed; FIR not quashed; Investigation directed to be completed within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.960 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.638 & 4302 of 2019
1.Mary Latha Joyce 2.Prabhu ...Petitioners -Vs1.The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai 2.S.Raju ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with FIR/Crime No.366 of 2018 on file of First Respondent Police and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondents For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.V.R.Appaswamy ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.366 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 420 and 334 of IPC, as against the petitioners.
"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.
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, 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."
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+2cc to Mr.VR.Appaswamee, Advocate Sr.41755
+1cc to Mr.S.Kingston Jerold, Advocate Sr.42231
Crl.O.P.No.960 of 2019
ln[co]
srg 02/07/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR at the threshold stage when it discloses prima facie commission of a cognizable offence.
Whether the FIR is frivolous or vexatious warranting quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of MaharashtraRelied on¶15
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mary Latha Joyce
Prabhu
The State
S.Raju
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
