Anand Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11935 and 11936 of 2016 Anand Kumar
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District.
(Cr.No.271 of 2014) ...1st Respondent / Complainant 2.R.Manickam ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to Crime No.271 of 2014, dated 14.08.2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.271 of 2014, dated 14.08.2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District, as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was residing at D.No.9.10.4/B, Vinayagar Kovil Street, Vannarapettai, 19th Ward Usilampatti Town, Madurai District and he was retired from service as a Deputy Director of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department. He purchased the property in S.No.151/10 for his son namely Kishor Babu. Logeswari/A2 was residing near by the said property and she executed a sale consideration for a sum of Rs.4,09,100/- vide document No.2031/2007 at Usilampatti SubRegistrar Office. Unfortunately, the defacto complainant's son died on 27.02.2009. After demise of the defacto complainant's son, the said Logeswari/A2 and her daughters had jointly executed a sale deed to one Anandkumar vide Document No.49/2014, which was already bought by the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint as against the petitioners.
1/4
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons 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.271 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 420, 294(b) & 506(i) IPC., as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
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, 2/4
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. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:- "12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies 3/4
in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vsd To 1.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11935 and 11936 of 2016 08.12.2020 SE(CO) KB(11.01.2021) 4P 3C 4/4