M.V.Prasanna v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl. O.P. No. 4906 of 2020 and Crl. M.P. No.2798 of 2020 1.M.V.Prasanna, D/o. M. Chalapathi, W/o. Rallapalli Karthik, #18931 Trinity Star, Dr. Cypress, TX-77433, Rep. by her power agent, Chalapathi, S/o. M.Venkataiah Naidu, No.4, Rajaji Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

2.M.V.Prashanthi, D/o. M.Chalapathi, W/o. Kollipara Radhakrishna, #33 Union Sq. Apartment, Union City CA 94587, Rep. by her power agent, Chalapathi, S/o. M.Venkataiah Naidu, No.4, Rajaji Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

3.M.Chalapathi, S/o. M.Venkataiah Naidu, No.4, Rajaji Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

... Petitioners vs.

1.The State represented by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch -1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

(FIR. No.287 of 2019) 2.G.Rajagopal, S/o. Govindasamy Chettiar, No.235/5, Jaihind Flats, Belly Area, Chennai - 600 040 .. Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in FIR No. 287 of 2019, pending on the file of the first Respondent Police, Central Crime Branch -1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

For Petitioners : Mr. G.Jayachandran For Respondent -1 : Mr. S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent - 2 : No Appearance

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in FIR No. 287 of 2019, pending on the file of the first Respondent Police, Central Crime Branch -1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

2.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.287 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 34 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.

Heard Mr. G.Jayachandran, 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.

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."

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.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to produce all the documents before the first respondent and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.287 of 2019 and file final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of entire documents from the petitioners, before the concerned jurisdiction Magistrate. If the first respondent finds no material as against the petitioners, he shall pass orders accordingly, in accordance with law.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bkn To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch -1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

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

Crl. O.P. No. 4906 of 2020 LN(CO) GN(07/10/2020)