Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 22715 of 2016 and CMP(MD) No. 11885 of 2016
1. Manikandan
2. Inbaraj
3. Raman
...Petitioners/A-1, A-4 & A-5
-Vs1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Valandur Police Station, Madurai Disrict.
Crime No.117 of 2016.
... R-1/Complainant
2. Periyasamy ...R-2/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the FIR in Crime No.117 of 2016 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.P. Senguttuarasan For R-1 : M/s. M. Ananthadevi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.Thalaimutharasu
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR Crime No.117 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 447, 342, 294(b), 323, 427 and 506 (ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person 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.117 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 342, 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
1/4
3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
4. Heard MMr.P. Senguttuarasan, , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M/s.M.Ananthadevi, learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and Mr.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and 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 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 in the case of 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 2/4
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."
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.117 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Ksa 3/4
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, Valandur Police Station, Madurai Disrict.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22715 of 2016 05.11.2020 SSS(CO) TR(23.11.2020) 4P 3C 4/4