Dismissed¶61

Arjunan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC25 Feb 2025CRL OP/1354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025; Madras HC 25.02.2025; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; Section 528 BNSS 2023; FIR Crime No.212/2024 Otteri Police Station; Sections 406, 420, 506(i) IPC; forged document and property usurpation allegation, Unamancheri Village Survey Nos.30/4 and 258/5,7,8,10; Section 156(3) CrPC Magistrate direction Crl.MP.No.8626/2023 dated 13.02.2024; FIR not an encyclopedia; prima facie cognizable offence; no interference with investigation; reliance on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar (2019 (14) SCC 350) and Neeharika Infrastructure (2021 SCC Online SC 315); direction to complete investigation and file final report within three months.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report contains specific allegations against the petitioner attracting the alleged offences, which have to be investigated in depth.

Arjunan Vs State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. in Crime No.212 of 2024 registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

The First Information Report contains specific allegations against the petitioner attracting the alleged offences, which have to be investigated in depth.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

An FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not contain all facts; it cannot be quashed at the threshold.

¶32

Key takeaways

The FIR discloses prima facie commission of a cognizable offence and, as such, this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.ratio¶36
The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.ratio¶36
In view of the above discussions, applying the principles in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar (2019 (14) SCC 350) and the Neeharika Infrastructure directions (2021 SCC Online SC 315), this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) dismissed Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025 filed under Section 528 BNSS 2023 seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.212/2024 of Otteri Police Station registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC. The FIR arose on the complaint of the second respondent (Sundaram) after a Section 156(3) CrPC direction by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu (Crl.MP.No.8626/2023 dated 13.02.2024), alleging that the petitioner created a forged document and usurped family properties at Unamancheri Village (Survey No.30/4 - 7 1/2 cents; Survey No.258/5, 7, 8, 10 - 78 cents). Holding that the FIR discloses specific allegations constituting a prima facie cognizable offence requiring in-depth investigation, that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and cannot be quashed at the threshold, and relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra (2019 (14) SCC 350) and the Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra directions (2021 SCC Online SC 315) that quashing must be an exception and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, the Court declined to quash the FIR. Since the investigation was almost complete, the first respondent was directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within three months before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed; the petition was dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.756 of 2025

Arjunan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.212/2024)

¶11

Sundaram ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.212 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan

¶14

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu

¶16

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.212 of 2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections

¶22

406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

¶23

The FIR was registered in Cr.No.212/2024 based on the complaint given by the second respondent herein, since the second respondent has filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, based on the direction from the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu in Crl.MP.No.8626/2023 dated 13.02.2024. It is alleged in the complaint that the property situated at Unamancheri Village in Survey No.30/4 to an extent of 7 ½ cents and the property in Survey No.258/5, 7, 8, 10 to an extent of 78 cents at Unamancheri Village belonged to the family of the second respondent and the petitioner alleged to create forged document, usurped the said property and the same was registered in his favour.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶28

respondent police registered a case in Crime No.212 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only after investigation since the specific allegations as against the petitioner is that he has registered the property in his name by a forged document in the year1970.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit

¶30

that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

¶31

5 . Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, 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

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶36

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.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., ( Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is

¶38

Page 4 of 8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶41

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 to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint 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.

¶42

Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. , as follows :-

¶43

“23. ....................

¶44

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶48

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an

¶49

exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶50

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶51

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.1354 of 2025

¶55

allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

¶56