Girold Villiam Roj v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5040 of 2018 Girold Villiam Roj ... Petitioner/2nd Accused -vs1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Vilson ... Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.392 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate(Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.392 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. It is alleged that due to some dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner abused the second respondent with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the grounds raised by the petitioner is purely factual in nature. The said defence can be raised only before the Court below, in the course of trial and 1/3
the Court below shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.
5. 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 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 2/3
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. In view of the above decision, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
7. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the first respondent Police to complete the investigation within a time frame.
8. Accepting the said submission, the first respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.392 of 2016 and file a final report before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RECORDS) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) tsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to Mr.K.P.NARAYANA KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-98214[F] dated 14/11/2019 ) 13.11.2019 MK (03.12.2019) 3P 4C 3/3