J.Mohanram v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.Mohanram ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police Town North Police Station, Dindigul (In Crime No.544 of 2019) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.J.Mahesh Sub Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul (In Crime No.544 of 2019) ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., calling for records relating to Crime No.544 of 2019 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Christopher For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (crl.side)
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.544 of 2019 pending on the file of the 1st respondent.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.544 of 2019 for the offence under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same. 3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation progress is going on.
1/3
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.
5.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 2/3
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.
7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar Ls To 1.The Inspector of Police Town North Police Station, Dindigul.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
15.10.2019 JM/24.10.2019/3P/3C 3/3