Dismissed

Gopalakrishnan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Mar 2022CRL OP(MD)/26/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from an FIR registered due to previous enmity. The Court held that the FIR disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences. Quashing was not allowed pending investigation, citing Supreme Court precedent, and the police were directed to complete the inquiry within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; police directed to complete investigation and file final report within eight weeks.

Gopalakrishnan Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.3 of 2020

¶7

Gopalakrishnan

¶8

Balamurugan 3. Balaguru ...Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1,2 & 4

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City, Crime No.61 of 2019.

¶11

R.John Sundara Pandinan ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.61 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City as against the petitioners concern.

¶13

For Petitioners: No Appearance For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petition had been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.61 of 2019, on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

¶16

2.On perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that due to previous enmity, the second respondent lodged a complaint and the respondent police has registered the FIR in crime No.61 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 469, 471, 294(b), 120(b) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

¶17

1/4

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

¶19

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that already entire bundle had been handed over to the petitioners and also withdrawn his memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

¶20

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court.

¶21

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

6.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.

¶23

7.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:-

¶24

"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.

¶25

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ meticulous analysis of the case should be done

¶26

2/4

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

¶28

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.

¶29

6.........

¶30

7.........

¶31

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."

¶32

8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.26 of 2020

¶38

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶39

¶40