Dismissed

A.Kumaresan, S/o.Appavu Nadar, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/3562/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Madurai Bench, Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash an FIR. The Court held that investigation being nearly complete, quashing was inappropriate as the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

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

A.Kumaresan, S/o.Appavu Nadar, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3562 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3562 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1687 of 2018 & 7370 of 2019

¶6

A.Kumaresan, ...petitioner/Accused No.1 -Vs-

¶7

1.State rep by The Inspector of Police Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District

¶8

...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Cr.No.37 of 2016

¶10

2.Balasudha ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

3.D.Ramesh Babu ...3^rd Respondent/Necessary Party

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the Crime No.37 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent as against this petitioner.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.S. Micheal Heldon Kumar, For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate(crl.side) For R2 : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.37 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent.

¶16

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent persons and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in in Crime No. 37 of 2016, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3562 of 2018

¶22

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:-

¶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

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

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3562 of 2018

¶29

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."

¶30

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.

¶31

7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the first 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy //

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶34

Ls To 1.The Inspector of Police Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

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

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.S. MICHEAL HELDON KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-100091[F] dated 21/11/2019 )

¶37

+1 CC to Mr.P.T. RAMESH RAJA, Advocate ( SR-100235[F] dated 21/11/2019 )

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3562 of 2018 21.11.2019

¶39

VB(06.12.2019) 3P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

3/3

A.Kumaresan, S/o.Appavu Nadar, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kumaresan, S/o.Appavu Nadar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annalakshmi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Natham R.Viswanathan Vs The Inspector of Police

Ct. Subramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeenath Nisha Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Ganthiyammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manickam Vs the Inspector of Police