G.Rajendhran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.432 of 2022 1.G.Rajendhran 2.G.R.Ananthapadmanapan 3.G.R.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.

1.The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.M.Muthusamy ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.27 of 2021, dated 31.08.2021, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muralikumar For R - 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R - 2 : Mr.S.Saravanan

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners fraudulently obtained the lands belonging to the defacto complainant, measuring an extent of 2.90 acres. Further, it is also alleged in the complaint that the fifth accused had forged the Aadhar card of the defacto complainant by defacing their image with the image of the sixth accused in ID proofs and with that forged ID proofs, the fifth accused registered a power of attorney bearing Document No.966 of 2020, dated 13.07.2020, in his favour by impersonating the sixth accused as defacto complainant. Subsequently, the fifth accused executed a sale deed in Document No.968 of 2020, dated 14.07.2020 in favour of the petitioners' Company. For the execution of power of attorney, dated 13.07.2020, one Muthupandi, the seventh accused and one Balu, the eighth accused had witnessed it and for the sale deed, dated 14.07.2020, one Balu, the eighth accused and one Manikandan, the ninth accused had witnessed it. It is also alleged in the complaint that the subject fraudulent sale was executed by the fifth accused conspiring with 1/4

one Perumal, the fourth accused, the authorized signatory of the petitioner's Company under the instructions of the present petitioners. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant has deliberately twisted the facts and gave a false complaint against the petitioners.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. 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.

6. 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 2/4

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."

7.

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 a 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 (CA & MC) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 3/4

ps Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Cell, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)No.592 of 2022 07.02.2022 SS/02.03.2022 : 4P/3C 4/4