Dismissed

Meena v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC4 Aug 2020CRL OP/11509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC sections 294(b), 406, 420, and 506(i). The bench held the FIR disclosed a prima facie case, relied on Supreme Court precedent preventing early interference, and rejected a compromise plea due to other pending cases. However, the court directed the police to complete investigation and

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed plea dismissed; Police directed to complete investigation and file final report within twelve weeks.

Meena Vs State Rep by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.11509 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.4637 of 2020

¶6

1.Meena

¶7

2.Sankar ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State rep by

¶10

The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Police Station (Crime),

¶11

Chennai. ..1^st Respondent/Complainant 2. Chandru ..2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. To call for the records in Crime No.411 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the Petitioner's portion in respect of the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Mohammed Asif for M/s.G.Sasikannan For 1^st Respondent: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor. O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.411 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.

¶15

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 1^st respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 411 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

¶17

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

¶18

Heard Mr.Mohammed Asif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶19

It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and 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.

¶20

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 in the case of 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therein, in the light of the statement

¶21

made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

¶22

...................... 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."

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that already the matter was compromised between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners also involved in another case in Crime Nos.888 of 2019 and 913 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur, Chennai.

¶25

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report on the ground of compromise for the reasons that the petitioners involved in another cases.

¶26

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the 1^st respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.411 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already

¶27

filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(ADI MDU)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
B-1, North Police Station (Crime),
Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.11509 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.4637 of 2020
SKS(CO)
GMY(24/09/2020)

¶29

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

Meena v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena v. State Rep by Its

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

Govindammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Kamaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karnan Vs State Rep.by

S.K.Bhupathi Yadav Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mugunthan Vs Kiruthiga

M.Premakumari Vs S.Janaki