M. Selvi v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD) No.8020 of 2019 Selvi ... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Town Police Station Madurai District
2. R. Pitchaiyammal ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 13 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Moorthikannan For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi No.1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 13 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is innocent he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b)and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Ex orbitant Interest Act, 2003 as against the petitioner. He would also submit that the occurrence took place on 01.12.2018, whereas the complaint was lodged on 06.01.2019 and the same has been registered.
3.
1/4
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.B.Moorthi Kannan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.
5. The petitioner herein is arrayed as A1 in this case in Crime No. 13 of 2019. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b)and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Ex orbitant Interest Act, 2003. The case of the prosecution is that due to some dispute regarding transaction of money in Magalir kulu at Thirumangalam civil dispute, the petitioners herein abused the defacto complainant and threatened with dire consequences. 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)and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Ex orbitant Interest Act, 2003. 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 2/4
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 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. and there are specific allegations against the accused person.
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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) 3/4
To
1. Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Town Police Station Madurai District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.B.MOORTHI KANNAN, Advocate SR-87900. and Crl.M.P(MD) No.8020 of 2019 19.09.2019 CS(03.10.2019) 4P 4C 4/4