Dismissed

Moideen Kutti Pallipath v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/12122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar, the Court held that since the investigation was nearing completion and the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence, the petition could not be entertained, directing the police to complete the investigation and file a final report within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed. The respondent police was directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within four weeks.

Moideen Kutti Pallipath Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.10.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7621 of 2019

¶6

1.Moideen Kutti Palipath

¶7

2.Pallipath Muneer @ Muneer

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶11

District Crime Branch Police Station,

¶12

Dindigul District.

¶13

(Crime No.08 of 2019)

¶14

...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶15

2.S.Vengadesh ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶16

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.08 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶18

For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Ragavendran

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.08 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police as against the petitioners.

¶21

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons 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.08 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 406, 420 and 506 (i) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶22

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

¶23

1/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

"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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019

¶33

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."

¶34

6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there is a specific allegation as against the petitionera, 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.

¶35

In view of the above, 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 four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

// True Copy //

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

dss

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019

¶44

¶45

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶46

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

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.RIGHT LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-94759[F] dated 25/10/2019 )

¶48

+1 CC to M/s.R.RAJAVENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-94812[F] dated 25/10/2019 )

¶49

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12122 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7621 of 2019

¶50

25.10.2019

¶51

KK/SAR/19.11.2019/4P-5C/

¶52

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

¶53

4/4

Moideen Kutti Pallipath v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideen Kutti Pallipath v. The Sub 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

Murugavel Vs the State Rep by

Kalvikkarasi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Saikumar Vs the State Rep by

Soundararajan Vs State Represented by

Mohan Vs the State Represented by

N.Cholaraja Vs v.Kalaiselvi