S.Kannan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No. 13828 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.No.5318 of 2020 1.S.Kannan, S/o.Subramani, No.109, Kamaraj Nagar, Katchipattu, Sriperumbudur-602 105.

2.S.Anthony, S/o.Dhasarathan, No.109, Kamaraj Nagar, Katchipattu, Sriperumbudur-602 105.

3.K.Tamilarasan S/o.Krishnan, No.117, Kamaraj Nagar, Katchipattu, Sriperumbudur-602 105.

4.S.Karuna, S/o.Selvaraju, Old No.285, New No.280, Perumal Koil Street, Papparampakkam, Thiruvallur-602 025.

... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

2.K.Kamesh, S/o.Kumar, Kamaraj Nagar, Katchipattu, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.2128 of 2020 pending on the file of the C1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District and quash the same. For Petitioners: Mr.N.Prakash For R1 : 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. 2128 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, as against the petitioners.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have waylaid the second respondent, assaulted him with wooden log and caused injury and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 2128 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

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

5.

Heard Mr.N.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 6.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 deapth. 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. 7.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.

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."

8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.2128 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Mpa To

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.13828 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.No.5318 of 2020 LN(CO) GN(08/10/2020)