M.Panchatcharam, M/A 57 Years v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.16397 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7966 of 2016 M.Panchatcharam ... Petitioner Vs

1. TheState represented by The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

(Crime No.76/2013)

2. Sivagnanam ... Respondents Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No.76 of 2013 dated 11.06.2013 under Sections 167, 468, 470, 471, 419, 420, 427, 447, 506(ii) IPC r/w.34 IPC registered at Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry and consequential proceedings arising therefrom and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Ms.Usha Ramman For Respondents:

For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Pondy) For R2 : No Appearance

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.76 of 2013 dated 11.06.2013 under Sections 167, 468, 470, 471, 419, 420, 427, 447, 506(ii) IPC r/w.34 IPC registered at Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry and consequential proceedings arising therefrom and to quash the same.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. 3.The petitioner is arrayed as accused 6 in Crime No.76 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 468, 470, 471, 419, 420, 427, 447, 506(ii) IPC r/w.34 IPC by the first respondent police.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent police without proper investigation filed a charge sheet as against the petitioner in Crime No.76 of 2013 dated 11.06.2013, on the file of the first respondent police. He further submitted that there are sufficient materials to show that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings in Crime No.76 of 2013.

5.It is relevant to extract the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, with regard to quashing of the criminal proceedings.

"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.

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 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."

6.In the case on hand, the points raised by the petitioner is question of facts, which are to be raised only before the first respondent police. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits to quash the proceedings in Crime No.76 of 2013. However, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the relevant documents to show that on the date of occurrence he was not there on the place of occurrence before the first respondent police. On receipt of the same, the first respondent police is directed to complete the trial within a period three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rna

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

Crl.O.P.No.16397 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7966 of 2016 RGN(CO) CS/20/05/2019