Dismissed

Rev.Father Lusiyan Thamas Fr, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/7905/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under sections of the IPC. The Court held that as the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, the investigation could not be stifled at the threshold and must be permitted to proceed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition and consequently the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed. The Police were directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within three months.

Rev.Father Lusiyan Thamas Fr, Vs the Inspector of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7905 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7905 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 4816 of 2019

¶7

Rev. Father Lusiyan Thamas FR.

¶8

Secretary Latin Catholic Fisherman Educational Society.

¶9

Shaji

¶10

Antony

¶11

Dickkar Dhoos

¶12

Rajappan ...Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

Ahammed Razeed ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 76 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R. Sreenivasan

¶18

For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No. 76 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.

¶21

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.76 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506 (i) of I.P.C. Hence they prayed to quash the same.

¶22

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

¶23

1/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7905 of 2019

¶25

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.

¶26

Perused the materials available on record.

¶27

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.

¶28

6.It is 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:-

¶29

"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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7905 of 2019

¶34

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.

¶35

6......... 7.........

¶36

8........

¶37

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."

¶38

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 dismissed. 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.

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶41

ksa

¶42

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

¶43

3/4

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7905 of 2019

¶45

¶46

The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶47

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶48

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

+1 CC to M/s.M.R.SREENIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-98579[F] dated 15/11/2019 )

¶50

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7905 of 2019

¶51

14.11.2019

¶52

JMN(10.12.2019) 4P : 4C

¶53

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

¶54

4/4

Rev.Father Lusiyan Thamas Fr, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev.Father Lusiyan Thamas Fr, 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

R.duraipandi Vs The Commissioner of police

K. Andrews Vs The Inspector of Police

Mahadev Anand Moore, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Anbumani, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Veluchamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S.Manikandan, Vs the District Collector