Madras High CourtCRL OP/2709/2020dismissed

Sripal v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-07-21Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.07.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.2709 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1625 of 2020 Sripal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No.1152 of 2019)

2. Sasikala ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.1152 of 2019 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District and quash the same. For Petitioners: Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1152 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 326A, of IPC and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (PDA Amendment Act, 2015, as against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as against the petitioner, the first respondent police registered a case under the SC/ST Act. Since the petitioner is also belong to the SC/ST community, the said offence would not attract as against the petitioner. He would further submit that the counter complaint also filed by the petitioner and the same has been registered in Crime No.1153 of 2019 and the same is pending.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the counter complaint lodged by the

petitioner in Crime No.1153 of 2019 was closed as mistake of fact as early as on 26.12.2019.

4. Heard Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent

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

6. 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:- "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.

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."

7. 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, the petitioner is directed to produce the community certificate issued by the authorities concerned and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to verify and complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kv

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.2709 of 2020 LN(CO) CB(30/09/2020)