K.Vignesh v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:30.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.15434 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.5881 of 2020 V.Vignesh ... Petitioner / Accused No.7 Vs

1. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

..1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Sumathi ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pending on the file of the 1st respondent police namely Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District in Crime No.130 of 2020 and to quash the Criminal Proceeding as against the petitioner concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram Sr. Counsel for Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent 1:Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pending on the file of the 1st respondent police namely Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District in Crime No.130 of 2020 and to quash the Criminal Proceeding as against the petitioner concerned. 2.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime No.130 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 2002, as

against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same. 3.

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

4.

Heard Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 petitioner to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in deapth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopaedia 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.

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. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the injured sustained simple injury, even that the first respondent registered the case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he further submitted that there are absolutely no allegations to attract under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 2002. Considering the above submission, the second respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.130 of 2020 and file a final report

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, if any interference attracted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 2002, accordingly, the first respondent is directed to alter the charge. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rna To 1.The Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.15434 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.5881 of 2020 NR(CO) RMP(09/11/2020)