Crl.O.P. filed to quash a registered FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding a stalled vehicle purchase agreement. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out and dismissed the petition, directing the police to file a final report.
FIR quash petition dismissed; investigation to continue and final report to be filed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.949 of 2022
V.S.Thamilan
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for records in Crime No.5 of 2021 on the file of the first Respondent Police and quash the same insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunaraj For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2021 on the file of the first Respondent Police.
Page 2 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
to pay any amount as assured by them. One fine morning, all the vehicles were left in the road. Thereafter, the vehicles were taken by the second respondent and had spent more than Rs.80,00,000/- to revive the vehicles. They played the vehicles for 1 ½ years and earned lakhs of rupees. Hence, the complaint.
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
that there is a prima facie case made out to constitute the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(1) and 120B of IPC. Admittedly, no single paise paid by the petitioner so far, after purchasing the vehicle numbering 115 to the tune of Rs.18,50,00,000/-. After a period of 1½ years, vehicles were again let in the custody of the respondent. Therefore, it has to be investigated in depth to unearth the truth.
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
Page 4 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
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 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
Page 5 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
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."
of 2021, on the file of the first respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.5 of 2021 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
01.12.2023
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mn
Page 6 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. mn
Crl.O.P.No.2156 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.949 of 2022
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR when a prima facie case of criminal offence is disclosed in the complaint.
Whether allegations of a civil nature arising from a dispute over vehicle purchase are sufficient to quash a registered criminal FIR.
Whether the investigating machinery must complete its inquiry and file a final report in the pending criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors.Applied¶35
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., Crl.A.No.255 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019
V.S.Thamilan
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Vellore
Ezhil Kumar
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
