N.Karnal v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.05.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.9923 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No.6523 of 2023 1.N.Karnal 2.K.Samuel 3.R.Prema 4.A.Murthy ... Petitioners/Accused Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, (ALGSC), Vellore, Vellore District.
... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.K.Jawarilal Jain ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Cr.No.14 of 2021 dated 18.10.2022 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent 1 : Mr.N.S.Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 2021 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120B,
420, 448, 465, 446, 466, 468, 471, 474, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively. They fabricated documents for the property owned by the defacto complainant and also impersonated the defacto complainant and executed a power of attorney. They also trespassed into the property and threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the second respondent/Defacto complaint launched the complaint.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the final report is yet to be filed.
4. There is no representation on the side of the petitioners. Heard Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent.
5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, 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. In this regard, 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.
04.05.2023 nl Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, (ALGSC), Vellore, Vellore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
nl Crl.O.P.No.9923 of 2023 04.05.2023