High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025P.Padmini ....PetitionerVs1. State Represented By, The Inspector of Police CBCID South, Tiruppur.Crime No. 01/20202. The Chief Manager, The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.Asset Recovery Branch,2nd Floor No.54, Shiva Complex,Old Post Office Road, Near Collector Office, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore.Pin Code-641018....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR No.01 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of police, CBCID South, Tiruppur, For Petitioner : Ms.K.R.Ananda GomathyFor R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.01 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of police, CBCID South, Tiruppur, for the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 420 r/w 109, 466, 468, 471 of IPC & 82(a) of Registration Act.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, colluded with A-18 and A-19 and registered an extent of 3.50 acres land situated at Pachapalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District in the name of P.Ramesh on 23.07.2014, using an original ayyan patta, while concealing the fact that the land assignment had been cancelled as early as 1980 itself.3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.01 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 420 r/w 109, 466, 468, 471 of IPC & 82(a) of Registration Act as against the petitioner. She further submitted that the only allegation as against the petitioner is that she was the registering authority. Hence she prayed for quashing of the FIR.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as A20, being the Sub Registrar who Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025registered the documents in question. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner and other accused persons. He further submitted that the investigation has been completed and final report is about to be filed. Hence, he opposed to quash the FIR. 5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, 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. 7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, 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 to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint 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.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;..............xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;.............xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”9.In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year 2020, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.01 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 202510.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppTo1. The Inspector of Police CBCID South, Tiruppur. 2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4603 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. LppCrl.O.P.No. 4603 of 202520.02.2025Page 8 of 8