Annamalai v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.

OP .No.

25346 of 20 25 and Crl.MP.No.17127 of 2025 Annamalai ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-1 MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

(Cr.No.3/AC/2025) 2.R.Dineshkumar ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and quash the first information report in 3/AC/2025 dated 30.06.2025 pending on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-I, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents For R1 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the first information report in 3/AC/2025 dated 30.06.2025 pending on the

file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-I, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant working as Manager in a private company had applied for 6 separate electricity connections. The petitioner who is working as Commercial Inspector, TANGEDCO, Manapakkam allegedly demanded Rs.15,000/- for the above process. Therefore, the de facto complainant has given written complaint dated 30.06.2025 before the first respondent police. Based on the written complaint, on investigation, the first respondent police registered First Information report against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under section 7(b) of THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 in Crime Number Crime No.3/AC/2025, against which this criminal original petition has been filed by the accused.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Commercial Inspector and he has nothing to do with providing electricity service connection to the petitioner. However, the present case has been registered against the petitioner.

4.

The learned Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report.

5.

It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner 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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie

case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, 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 to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint 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.

Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- "23. ....................

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

..............

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; .............

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; ......." 8.

In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year 2025, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.3/AC/2025 dated 30.06.2025 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. 9.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.06.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

To 1.1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-1 MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 05.06.2026