S.Alagurajan v. Iop Ccb Ch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.24208 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.13709 of 2018
1. S.Alagurajan S/o.P.L.Suruliandi, No.H-71, Barani Builders, 3rd Floor, 5th Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 102.
2. Raja Alagurajan, S/o. S.Alagurajan, No.1935, 1st Block, Flat No.3B, Shalom Shelter 38th Street, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40. ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, Chennai Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 08.
..1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Sri Haran, S/o.Sripadmanathan, C/o.FM House, No.302, Anna Salai, Chennai 06.
... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in impugned FIR in Crime No.388/2018 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Sanjesh Mahalingam for Naveen Kumar Murthi For Respondents : Mr.K.Prabakar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1 No Appearance, for R2
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.388 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506 (ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners. 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent 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.388 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506 (ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is pending for want of some documents from the complainant.
4.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which have 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.
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, considering the crime is of the year 2018, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.388 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order,
before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To
1. The Inspector of Police, Chennai Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 08.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.24208 of 2018 SSV(CO) GMY(11/09/2020)