Surya v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020 1.Surya 2.Arul @ Gowtham 3.Sujatha ... Petitioners Vs.
1. State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Royakkottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.527 of 2020).
2.Perumal ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.527 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan [R1] Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.527 of 2020 registered by the 1st respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are students and they are no way connected with the occurrence took place on 14.07.2020. In fact, the defacto complainant and the group of persons attacked the petitioners and their parents, in which, the parents of the 1/4
petitioners A1 to A3 were sustained grievous injuries and also their teeth were broken, even the 1st respondent police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
3.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the very same occurrence there are two F.I.Rs, and as such they have to investigate the matter and to find out the real aggressor of the occurrence.
4.
Heard Mr.A.Balamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 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.
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.
2/4
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."
3/4
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. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that there is a counter complaint filed by the petitioners and the same was registered in Crime No.528 of 2020. Considering the above submissions, the first respondent is directed to follow the procedures laid down under 588 A of Police Standing order and find out the original aggressor of the occurrence took place on 14.07.2020 and complete the investigation in Crime No.527 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssn To
1. The Inspector of Police, Royakkottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020 ajs(co) aa21/10/2020 4/4