High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3499 of 2025Sakthi Chidambaram....Petitioner Vs1.The State represented by itsInspector of Police,V-5 Virugambakkam Police Station,Chennai – 600 093.2. Natarajan....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records in Crime No.408 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the FIR against the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant DineshFor R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.408 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025cinema production company in the name and style of “Suri Shot Studio”. He approached the defacto complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for interest to complete his movie project. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to return the money. After several requests made by the defacot complainant, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as interest over the last four years. In the meantime he started producing another movie and promised to provide the satellite rights for his movie in return for the aforementioned amount in the name of 'Gemini Labs'. However, it was a forged document to deceive him. Hence, the complaint.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was a money transaction between the petitioner and the second respondent and no offence has been made out as against the petitioner.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner had forged the signature of the Manager of the Gemini Labs and fabricated the documents. Therefore, a prima-facie case has been made out as against the petitioner by the second respondent to register the FIR in Crime No.408 of 2022 for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 420 of IPC. He further submitted that the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025investigation has been completed and final report is yet to be filed. 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 Pokarnekar 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025summoning 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 contentions 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025in 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 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025under 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, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.408 of 2022 and file a final report within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppToPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 20251. The Inspector of Police,V-5 Virugambakkam Police Station,Chennai – 600 093.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.LppPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 2025Crl.O.P.No. 5402 of 202527.02.2025Page 8 of 8