Logasamy v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.08.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.5719 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.3244 of 2020 1.Logasamy 2.Kumar 3.Angamuthu 4.Sathivel 5.Gowrisankar 6.Anandhakumar 7.Ragamathulla 8.ShagulHameedu 9.Gowrisankar 10.Vishvanathan 11.Sivalingam 12.Mohan 13.Chandru 14.Kumar 15.Rajendiran 16.Chandiran 17.Balaji 18.Mohan 19.Kirupanathan 20.Thangavel 21.Jegadheesan 22.Rajendiran 23.Balaji 24.Subramani 25.Raji 26.Seerangan 27.Velusamy ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, (Crime No.22 of 2020)

2. Mr.Lingasamy Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode North, Erode District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.22 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent, i.e., The Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode.

For Petitioners : B.Mohan For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.22 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 8 and 9 of TN Gaming Act, as against the petitioners.

2.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

3.

Heard Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

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. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.

When this Court is about to dismiss this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, considering the crime is of the year January 2020, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.22 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of Eight 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.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station.

Erode District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.5719 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.3244 of 2020 RSV(CO) SP(05/10/2020)