Pandiarajan 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.931 of 2025 Pandiarajan ... Petitioner Vs
1. Through the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District.
(Crime No.31 of 2024).
2. Parvathi ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, To call for the records in FIR in Crime no.31 of 2024 dated on 15.11.2024 on the file of the Respondent Police and Quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sivaprakash For Respondents 1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.31 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police. 1/5
2. The crux of the case is that the second respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint before the first respondent police stating that the accused persons had impersonated and grabbed the ancestral properties of the defacto complainant, by creating fraudulent documents and used them as if, they are original before the Registration authorities. Based on the same was registered in Crime No.31 of 2024 on 15.11.2024 for the offence under Sections 417, 419, 468, 471, 420, 120B of 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 following portion of the FIR, this Court satisfy with the ingredients of the offences under Sections 417, 419, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC and the same is required to be investigated by the police officer.
4.1.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases, ● Gimpex (P) Ltd. v. Manoj Goel reported in 2022 (11) SCC 705 :: 2/5
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. Hence, this Court finds no reason to entertain this quash petition when the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 417, 419, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC.
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.31 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 To
1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
PNM/sbn ORDER IN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.931 of 2025 27.01.2025 5/5