High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.2499 of 20251. V.Murugan2. Ezhukundan @ Vijayakumar3. Boopathi4. Ellappan5. Vedivasan6. V.Velmurugan7. Chettair @ Venkatraman8. T.Ramachandran9. Mangammal... PetitionersVs1. The State Represented By, Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No.263 of 2024.2. Rani... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Cr.No.263 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.J.Bharathi RajaFor R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.side)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the FIR in Cr.No.263 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased one Pushparaj, who is the son of the second respondent herein had illegal intimacy with the wife of the 7th petitioner herein. It is alleged that in the Panchayat, the conduct of the deceased and the wife of the 7th petitioner herein was condemned and both of them were advised not to continue their illegal relationship. Thereafter, on 08.10.2024 the deceased went out of his house and did not return back. The next day morning, it was informed that the deceased consumed poison and admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Krishnagiri and he died on 10.10.2024. Hence, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.263 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2) and 108 of BNS, 2023.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025absolutely no specific allegation as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 306 IPC. There has to be a clear mensrea from the petitioners to abut the deceased to commit suicide and it also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.5. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only before the Trial Court during the Trial. Now, it is in FIR stage. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025vs. 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 not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025allegations 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. 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. .................... 7vi) 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 facts 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025report/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; .......”8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.263 of 2024. The respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.263 of 2024 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.13.02.2025Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 202513.02.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.2499 of 20251. V.Murugan2. Ezhukundan @ Vijayakumar3. Boopathi4. Ellappan5. Vedivasan6. V.Velmurugan7. Chettair @ Venkatraman8. T.Ramachandran9. Mangammal... PetitionersVs1. The State Represented By, Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No.263 of 2024.2. Rani... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Cr.No.263 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.J.Bharathi RajaFor R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.side)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the FIR in Cr.No.263 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased one Pushparaj, who is the son of the second respondent herein had illegal intimacy with the wife of the 7th petitioner herein. It is alleged that in the Panchayat, the conduct of the deceased and the wife of the 7th petitioner herein was condemned and both of them were advised not to continue their illegal relationship. Thereafter, on 08.10.2024 the deceased went out of his house and did not return back. The next day morning, it was informed that the deceased consumed poison and admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Krishnagiri and he died on 10.10.2024. Hence, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.263 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2) and 108 of BNS, 2023.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025absolutely no specific allegation as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 306 IPC. There has to be a clear mensrea from the petitioners to abut the deceased to commit suicide and it also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.5. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only before the Trial Court during the Trial. Now, it is in FIR stage. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025vs. 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 not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025allegations 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. 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. .................... 7vi) 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 facts 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025report/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; .......”8. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.263 of 2024. The respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.263 of 2024 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.13.02.2025Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.3833 of 202513.02.2025Page 8 of 8