R.Madhan v. State Represented By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.2976 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.1773 of 2020 1.R.Madhan, M/A.31 years, S/o.Ramachandran, No.15, Vinayakar Street, Ramakrishnapuram, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 059.
2.Sridhar, M/a.29 years, S/o.Gopal, No.501, Velachery Main Road, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 059.
3.M.Dinesh Kumar, M/A.29 years, S/o.Munusamy, No.429-A, Railway Colony, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.
4.Guleshwaran, M/A.28 years, S/o.Vedhaselam, No.1, Azagr Street, Ramakrishnapuram, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 059. 5.Yokeshwaran, M/A.30 years, S/o.Vedhaselam, No.1, Azagr Street, Ramakrishnapuram, East Tambaram, Chennai - 600 059. 6.K.Venkatesan, M/30 years, S/o.R.Kulothungan ... Petitioners Vs.
1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, S.15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai -73.
2. Shyam Kumar, M/A .34 years, S/o.R.Vijaya Shanmugam, No.1, Anjugam Street, Radhey Avenue Extension, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai - 600 073.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No.509 of 2019, dated 25.06.2019, on the file of the Inspector of Police, S.15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai -
73 and quash the same so far as the petitioners 1 to 6 are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmugha Velayutham, Sr.Counsel for Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor No Appearance for R2
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.509 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 323, 306 of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.509 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 306 of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same. 3.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report. 4.
It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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. 5.
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.
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 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 first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.509 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2020 ub FOR BEING MENTION This matter having been posted for hearing under the caption for Being Mentioned & upon hearing the arguments of Mr.s.Shamugavelayudham Sr.Counsel for Mr.T.Vijaraghavan for the petitioners and of Mr.S.Karthikeyan APP for the 1st Respondent the Court made the following order:
O R D E R
This petition is taken up for hearing today, under the caption ''for being mentioned'', at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Heard both sides.
3. On a perusal of entire case papers, it is found that already an order has been passed by this Court in this case on 05.08.2020, dismissing this petition, with a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.509 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order dated 05.08.2020 does not require any clarification / modification and the order dated 05.08.2020 shall remain unaltered and hold good and it is clarified accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssn
To 1.The Inspector of Police, S.15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai -73.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.2976 of 2020 and CRL.MP.No.1773 of 2020 SVI(CO) CB(13/10/2020)