Dismissed

Marasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Aug 2020CRL OP/12052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the First Information Report under Section 482 CrPC, holding that it disclosed a prima facie case. The Court directed the police to complete the investigation and file a final report within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

The FIR was not quashed; the second respondent was directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within sixteen weeks.

Marasamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.08.2020 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶3

CRL.O.P.No.12052 of 2020 and CRL.MP.No.4788 of 2020

¶4

1.Marasamy
2.Suseela
3.Nanjaammal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
(Investigation Officer)
Karumathampatti, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Annur Police Station,
Annur, Coimbatore District.
3.M.Mohanambal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the First
Information Report pending on the file of the 2 nd respondent
police in Cr.No.1362 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Udayakumar
for Mr.Karan and Uday
For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
For R1 & R2 Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the First Information Report pending on the file of the 2 nd
respondent police in Cr.No.1362 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020.

¶5

1/4

¶6

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

¶7

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 second respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1362 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 3(2)(v) (a) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 r/w 365, 323, 506(i) of IPC @ 3(2) (v)(a) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act-2015 r/w 341, 365, 323, 506(i), 306 of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶8

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

¶9

Heard Mr.S.Udayakumar for M/s.Karan and Uday, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶10

It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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.

¶11

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:-

¶12

"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

¶13

2/4

¶14

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

¶15

complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.

¶16

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. ......................

¶17

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."

¶18

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

¶19

3/4

¶20

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, considering the crime is of the year 2020, the second respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1362 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
gv
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
(Investigation Officer)
Karumathampatti, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Annur Police Station,
Annur, Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.12052 of 2020
and
CRL.MP.No.4788 of 2020
nrl(co)
aa30/09/2020

¶22

4/4

¶23

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

Marasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marasamy v. the Deputy Superintendent 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kesavan Vs S.Gayathri

Velusamy Vs State Rep.by

K.P.Ashoka Vs J.Catheriene

M/S.Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police

Iruleswaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajalingam @ Duraipandi Vs The Inspector of Police