Dismissed

Anbu ramu alias ramu v. The inspector of police

Madras HC24 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/11228/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR alleging offences under the IPC. It held that since the FIR disclosed a prima facie case, the investigating machinery must proceed, and the complaint cannot be quashed merely because allegations appear civil in nature. Investigation was directed to be completed within three months.

What did the court decide?

FIR was not quashed; 3-month period directed for completion of investigation and filing of final report before the Magistrate.

Anbu ramu alias ramu Vs The inspector of police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019

¶7

and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 7077 of 2019

¶8

Anbu Ramu @ Ramu

¶9

Satheesh Kumar

¶10

Alaguraja

¶11

Kaleeswaran

¶12

Karthiga @ Karthiga Devi

¶13

: Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5

¶14

¶15

1.State represented by the The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶16

(FIR No.81 of 2016) : Respondent/Complainant

¶17

2.Ganesan

¶18

: Respondent/Informant

¶19

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to FIR No.81 of 2016, dated 20.03.2016 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioners : M/s.R.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi, G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.81 of 2016, dated 20.03.2016 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 81 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. with an intention to prevent the petitioners to join Government jobs. Hence they prayed to quash the same.

¶24

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

¶25

1/4

¶26

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019

¶27

3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶28

Perused the materials available on record.

¶29

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

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

¶31

"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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

2/4

¶35

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019

¶36

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.

¶37

6......... 7......... 8........

¶38

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."

¶39

7.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019

¶44

¶45

1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶46

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

¶47

+1 CC to Mr.R. MURUGAPPAN, Advocate SR-89234.

¶48

Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 11228 of 2019 24.09.2019

¶49

CS(09.10.2019) 4P 4C

¶50

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

¶51

4/4

Anbu ramu alias ramu v. The inspector of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anbu ramu alias ramu 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

Muthumari Vs The inspector of police

Parvathi, W/o.Late. Sekar, Vs The District Collector

Pandivenkatesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Balachandar Vs The Sub inspector of police

Ramu Vs a.Anusuya

Madhavan Vs The Inspector of Police