Sankar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2825 of 2022

1. Sankar

2. Pandiyan

3. Murali @ Muralikaran

4. Keerthi @ Kirtheeswaran

5. Suresh

6. Sundari @ Gunasundari

7. Suriya @ Surendran 8.Swedha

9. Karna @ Rajeshwari

10. Sakthivel

11. Amusu

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 11

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District.

Crime No.98 of 2022 ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Vikram Dharma ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to call for the records relating to the FIR dated 29.01.2022 in Crime No.98 of 2022 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr. R.L.Dhilipan Pandian for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 98 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The prosecution case is that on 29.01.2022 at 08.00PM, the first petitioner being advocate clerk had quarrel with the defacto complainant and his friend and assaulted him using iron rod and bare hands. While being so, the fourth petitioner had cut down the gold chain of the defacto complainant. In that regard a case in Crime No.98 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 379 and 506(ii) of IPC. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 379 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioners.

However, he would further submitted that counter case in Crime No.99 of 2022, has been registered on the complaint given by the petitioner against the second respondent and it is pending for investigation. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court. 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 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.

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 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 police is directed to complete the investigation in both the cases, ie., in Crime Nos. 98 & 99 of 2022 and file final report, after complying the procedure contemplated as per 588 of Police Standing Order, 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 (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PNM 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, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District.

Crime No.98 of 2022 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

&Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2825 of 2022 09.03.2022 MGJ(24.03.2022) 4P 3C