A.Sarabeevi v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.04.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P.NO.8784 OF 2022 AND CRL.M.P.NO.5109 OF 2022 Mrs.A.Sarabeevi, W/o.K.M.Musthafa

...Petitioner / Accused No.2

Vs 1.The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team-I, Chennai.

(Crime No.170 of 2021) 2.F.Benjamin Arokyaraj, S/o.Francis Xavier

...Respondents / Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased to call for the records in Crime No.170 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team-I, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar For Respondents For R1 :

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for the records in Crime No.170 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team-I, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the second respondent/defacto complainant is that the A-1 induced the second respondent/defacto complainant to invest in his business and thereby the second respondent/defacto complainant had

invested an amount of Rs.2.75 Crores and further allegation is that the accused had cheated the second respondent/defacto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even taking into consideration the entire averments, the allegations are only against the husband of the petitioner. He would submit that a case of business transaction has been given as a criminal colour and the entire family members have roped into the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A-2. Other than being the wife of the petitioner, she has no role to play.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the second respondent/defacto complainant had earlier filed an application in Crl.O.P.Nos.7097 and 7127 of 2021 to complete the investigation.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would further submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. He would further submit that the first respondent will fairly conduct investigation and would assess the role or involvement of the petitioner so as to enable to file a final report.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.170 of 2021. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Further, the first respondent is directed to look into the role of the petitioner and complete the investigation and file a final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar rgm/arb To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team-I, Chennai.

(Cr.No.170 of 2021) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.8784 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.5109 of 2022 PM(CO) RVM(05/05/2022)