Petitioners sought quashing of FIR via Section 482 CrPC. High Court held FIR prima facie discloses offence and investigation incomplete. Petition dismissed; investigation directed to conclude within 8 weeks.
FIR not quashed. Investigation directed to be completed and final report filed within eight weeks.
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.
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17425 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17425 of 2019
1.M.Sujith
2.C.Raja Ananth @ Jegan Ananth
3.Mahesh
... Petitioners/Accused 1 and 3
Vs.
1.The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.211 of 2018) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Vijayakumar ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.211 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Aravinthan For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Sivabalan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2019, on the file of the second respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence the complaint.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without considering the entire facts of the case, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 211 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 387 and 506(ii) IPC.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the official respondent would submit that the investigation is almost https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17425 of 2019
completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
6.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.
7.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:-
"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.
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.
6.........
7.........
2/3
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17425 of 2019
8........ 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."
das To
1.The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.17425 of 2019 26.11.2019
KK/SAR/20.12.2019/3P-3C/
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR in Crime No. 211 of 2018 discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence warranting investigation before quashing.
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings at the threshold without evaluating merits of the material.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors.Referred¶21
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
M.Sujith
C.Raja Ananth
Mahesh
The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station
Vijayakumar
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
