← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1708/2018dismissed

Kumaravel v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-09-05Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD) No.729 of 2018

1. Kumaravel

2. Jeyaraman 3.Bapitha : Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs

1. The Inspector of Police Alanganallur Police Station Madurai District Crime No. 516 of 2017 : 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Senthamilarasi : Respondent/De-Facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No. 516 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi No.1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the the FIR in Crime No. 516 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai 2.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent herein had lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.516 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC r/w.Section 4 of TNPHW Act, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

3.

The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

4.

Heard Mr.S.Gokulraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

5. There are totally three accused in Crime No.652 of 2017 in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1 to A3. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC r/w.Section 4 of TNPHW Act. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 06.11.2016 at Chennai and thereafter the first petitioner and his family members harassed the second respondent by demanding more dowry. It is also seen from the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C that there are evidences to attract the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC r/w.Section 4 of TNPHW Act. 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. ......................

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."

6.

It is seen from the First Information Report that there is a 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.

and there are specific allegations against all the accused persons. 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. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to Mr.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate SR-85775.

and Crl.M.P(MD) No.729 of 2018 05.09.2019 CS(24.09.2019) 4P 4C