Sameem Riyaz v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1030 of 2025

1. Sameem Riyaz

2. Sahul Nishar

3. Mohammed Nilas ... Petitioners Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu rep through The Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur temple Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No. 96/2024).

2. Gnanamoorthy ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, To call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No. 96/2024 on the file of the Respondent, Thiruchendur Temple Police Station dated 02.06.204 and quash the same as illegal so far as the petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioner : M/s.Veera Raghul For Respondents 1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor 1/6

ORDER

This Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.96 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The crux of the case is that the second respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint before the first respondent police stating that on 01.06.2024 at about 11.45 p.m., the accused persons had robbed the calf of the defacto complainant in an auto. Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.96 of 2024 on 02.06.2024 for the offence under Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

4. On perusal of the records, this Court satisfy with the ingredients of the offence under Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC and the same is required to be investigated by the police officer.

2/6

4.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases; ● Gimpex (P) Ltd. v. Manoj Goel reported in 2022 (11) SCC 705 :: 2021 SCC Online SC 925, ● Amish Devgan v. Union of India, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 247 :: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 994, ● H.P. Cricket Assn. v. State of H.P., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 465 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 555 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2419, ● Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 168, ● Saranya v.

Bharathi, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 583 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 377 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 634 had held that the High Court has no inherent powers to interfere with the investigation, unless it is found that the allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or the power of investigation is being exercised by the police malafidely and the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction either under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of Constitution of India petition seeking for quashing of FIR, should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation.

offences under Sections 379 r/w 511 IPC. Further, this Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to appreciate the material produced before this Court and the defence of the petitioner at this stage.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The respondent Police is directed to file final report in Cr.No.96 of 2024 before the concerned Court within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for quash, after filing of final report, if so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

27.01.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PNM 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur temple Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

5/6

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

PNM/sbn ORDER IN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1030 of 2025 27.01.2025 6/6