S.Thirukkottai @ Seenivasagam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.2232 of 2022 and CRL MP(MD)No.1636 of 2022 S.Thirukotti @ Seenivasagam ... Petitioner / Accused (Rank not known) Vs
1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, CS CID, Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.101/2020) ... Respondent / Complainant
2. Annalakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
...Respondent /
Defacto Complainant PRAYER :- These Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call for the records in Crime No.101/2010 and quash the same as far as the petitioner / accused (Rank not known) is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr. Perumal.C.T.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.101/2010 and quash the same as far as the petitioner / accused (Rank not known) is concerned.
2.The case of the petitioner is that on 21.06.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., when the defacto complainant was conducting routine vehicle check up at Sankarankovil, Thiruvudayan Road, the first accused Senthoor Pandi crossed them with 2 bags of PDS rice each weighing 40KG. The Police officials arrested him and registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS), 1982 and Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the four accused persons and recorded his confession statement. Hence, the complaint.
1/4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is working as a salesman in PDS rice shop and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and also submitted that based on the confession statement alone the petitioner's name was impleaded in this case.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused Nos.2,4 and 5 were procured PDS Rice from the villagers and sold the same for higher price and the first accused in his statement has stated that he used to purchase PDS rice in the nearby villages of Karivalamvanthanallor, Alagapuri and A.Karisalkulamvanthanallor, Panaiyur and handed over the same in the godown owned by the third and the fourth accused. The second accused introduced the 3rd and 4th accused to the petitioner. 5.On perusal of records it shows that the petitioner is working as a salesman in PDS rice shop and there is a specific allegation is made against the petitioner to attract the said offences. Therefore, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody and he also suspended from service.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, 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., wherein it is 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.
2/4
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 facts and the circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first 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 3/4
of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TTA To
1. The Inspector of Police, CS CID, Tirunelveli.
Copy to:
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.C.T.PERUMAL, Advocate ( SR-16137[F] dated 01/04/2022 ) CRL OP(MD). No. 2232 of 2022 and CRL MP(MD)No.1636 of 2022 Date : 31/03/2022 MGJ(23.05.2022) 4P 4C 4/4