Dismissed

N.Karthikeyan v. The inspector of police

Madras HC18 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/10763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 498A, and 306 IPC. The High Court refused to quash the FIR as investigation was nearly complete, relying on Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar, and directed police to complete investigation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; police directed to complete investigation and file final report within eight weeks.

N.Karthikeyan Vs The inspector of police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.6572 & 6778 of 2019

¶7

1.N.KArthikeyan 2.N.Namasivayam 3.Radhiga ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs.

¶8

1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

2.Uma Thangam

¶10

( R2 is impleaded as per the order dated 29.08.2019 in Crl.MP (MD)No.7410 of 2019 in Crl.OP(MD)No.10763 of 2019)

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the complaint in Crime No.274 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul and quash the same.

¶12

For petitioners: M/S.A.L.Gandhimathi For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Prabhu

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.274 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul.

¶15

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2016 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C altered into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019

¶18

offences under Sections 420, 498 (A) and 306 of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶19

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶21

5.Considering the fact that the investigation is almost over, this Court cannot quash the First Information Report at this stage. 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 -

¶22

Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-

¶23

"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.

¶24

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, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019

¶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

6.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.

¶30

7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If final report filed as against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶32

// True Copy //

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019

¶37

¶38

1.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul.

¶39

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.AL .GANTHIMATHI, Advocate ( SR-99581[F] 20/11/2019 )

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.K. PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-99862[F] 20/11/2019 )

¶42

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10763 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.6572 & 6778 of 2019 18.11.2019

¶43

dss SDS (17.12.2019) 4P 5C

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

N.Karthikeyan v. The inspector of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Karthikeyan v. The inspector of police

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

R.Dhineshmary Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kondu Reddy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sittammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Easu Perianayagam Vs Selva Udhaya

T. Subin Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Athimani Vs the Commissioner of Police