P.Rethinamani v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.1812 of 2022 P.Rethinamani ... Petitioner/Accused No.18 Vs.
1.The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.729 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Jeyaprakasam ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.729 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasundarvijayaraj For R - 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.729 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent. 2.The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant, who is working as First Grade Constable in Kamuthi Police Station, was assigned to bandhopast from 28.10.2021 to 30.10.2021 for the occasion of Devar Jeyanthi in Pasumpon, the petitioner along with other accused blocked the vehicle of the Tahsildar and danced in front of the vehicle. Hence, the defacto complainant asking them to leave way for the vehicle, the petitioner 1/4
along with other accused scolded the defacto complainant and other police in filthy language and also damaged the top of the car. Hence, the complaint has been lodged. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.729 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 341, 353 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that one of the accused, namely A11, aged about 19 years, filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P(MD) No.18617 of 2021 and the same was allowed by this Court, by an order, dated 19.01.2022 and also observed that the prosecution can go on against the other accused persons.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that CCTV footage will have to be looked into during investigation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
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., 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 2/4
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 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 discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to verify the CC TV footage while investigating the crime and 3/4
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 dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S.RAMSUNDARVIJAYRAJ, Advocate ( SR-5840[F] dated 14/02/2022 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.2462 of 2022 10.02.2022 RD(23.02.2022) 4P 4C 4/4