Thangavel v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1036 of 2022 1.Thangavel 2.Raghavan 3.Kannadhasan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.489 of 2021).

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.S.S.Rajan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the Crime No.489 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Robinson For R - 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R - 2 : Mr.K.Gokul

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.489 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant purchased the property comprised in Survey Nos.2197/1 and 2197/2 measuring an extent of 5 acres 98 cents and when he entered into the said land along with his workers, the petitioners created problems and assaulted him and the third petitioner came with an aruval and tried to assault him and caused injury on the eye of the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent lodged the complaint. On receipt of the same, a case has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.489 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 of I.P.C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are no way connected with the present crime and they have CC TV footage to nullify the allegations made by the second respondent.

1/4

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., wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held 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 2/4

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 petitioners are at liberty to produce all the material evidence to show that they were not present in the place of occurrence on the occurrence date and on receipt of the same, the first respondent 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 (AD II) // 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, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.A.ROBINSON, Advocate ( SR-12830[F] dated 17/03/2022 ) Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)No.1390 of 2022 15.03.2022 SS/25.03.2022 : 4P/4C 4/4