Arputha Kanagaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3607 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.2653 of 2022

1. Arputha Kanagaraj

2. Amala Jothi Litson ... Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 Vs.

1. State Through The Inspector of Police Saathankulam Police Station ... 1st Respondent/Complainant Saathankulam Thoothukudi District 2.Nirmala ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No. 178 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s. Anbarasu S R For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 178 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a common pathway in the southern side of the Church at Saveriyarpuram and the 1st petitioner is used to obstruct the above Government Pathway then and there and because of this dispute arose among the villagers and the petitioners. While So, the husband of the defacto complainant and 12 others appeared before the 1st respondent police based upon the complaint made by 1st petitioner, since they damaged the gate of the petitioners. Because of this the petitioners nourished ill will and motive. In pursuance of that on 13.07.2021, at about 07.00 A.M,the petitioners came to the house of the defacto complainant in their two wheeler and abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and threatened to do away with them. 3.

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. 178 of 2021

for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(2) IPC and section 4 of prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. as against the petitioners. 4.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court. 5.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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 also 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 - 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.

6.........

7.........

8........

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. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav

To 1.The Inspector of Police Saathankulam Police Station Saathankulam Thoothukudi District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3607 of 2022 22.02.2022 MGJ(05.03.2022) 4P 3C