Dismissed

E.a.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail v. State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Aug 2020CRL OP/11589/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under section 482 CrPC to quash FIR alleging offences under IPC 120B, 467, 468, 471. Court refused to quash as FIR discloses prima facie case. Instead, directed police to investigate based on documents petitioner submits

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed. Petitioner to produce documents substantiating his version. Police directed to investigate and file final report within 3 months of receipt of documents.

E.a.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.11589 of 2020 and Crl.M.P No.4671 of 2020

¶6

E.A.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail Aged 71 years S/o.(late) E.K.Azim Nawaz Khan No.76, R.R Lay-out, Mettupalayam Road R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 002 ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police CCB Police Station Coimbatore City ..1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶9

J.Raghupathy Devi No.2/20, Sri Kanji Nagar Vinalkuruchi Road Coimbatore. ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records of the 1^st respondent FIR dated 20.06.2020 in Crime No.13/2020, on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for R2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.13 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶17

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

¶18

Heard Mr.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing for the second 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:-

¶21

"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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner can very well produce all the relevant documents before the first respondent to substantiate his version in respect of the alleged lease deed and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to complete the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation in Crime No.13 of 2020 and file a final report

¶25

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
uma
To
1. The Inspector of Police
CCB Police Station
Coimbatore City
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.11589 of 2020
& Crl.M.P No.4671 of 2020
MG(CO)
GMY(23/09/2020)

¶27

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

E.a.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.a.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail v. State Rep. by

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

S.K.Bhupathi Yadav Vs the Commissioner of Police

Meena Vs State Rep by Its

Mugunthan Vs Kiruthiga

S.Srividya Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Musthak Basha Vs State Rep by

G.Sivaprakasam Vs the Superintendent of Police