← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/14085/2020disposed of

V.Selvam v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-04-25Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN V.Selvam ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

Cr.No.883 of 2020 ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Shanmugasundaram ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to record the compromise memo and call for the entire records relating to the Crime No.883 of 2020, dated 19.08.2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.P.Ponraj

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020, dated 19.08.2020, on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2020 at about 09.30 p.m., the petitioner came to the de-facto complainant's house and developed quarrel with him and abused him in filthy language and also attempted him to murder by using aruval. Therefore, the present case came to be registered against the petitioners. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.883 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(2) of IPC as against the petitioner.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

1/3

5.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.

6.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........

2/3

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." 7.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

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

25.04.2022 RS (30.05.2022) 3P-3C 3/3