High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.4670 of 2025Karkavelraja... PetitionerVsState rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Sriperumbudur Police Station,Kancheepuram District.(Crime No.511 of 2024. ... RespondentPrayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Crime No.511 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner herein. For Petitioner :Mr.A.MurugavelFor Respondent :Mr.A.Gopinath,Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025O RDER This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.511 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2024, based on a complaint taken suo motu by the respondent police, it was alleged that on 01.07.2024, at about 14:00 hours, when the respondent police, along with their police party, went for a vehicular check at Mevalur Kuppam Village near Arun XL Apartment, and on suspicion, they checked the ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. TN.20 AL 9406. They enquired with the petitioner, who was said to have driven the vehicle, and on suspicion, they alleged to have found that the petitioner was in possession of some contraband, namely Vimal and Hans, totaling a quantity of 38 kgs and 700 grams. Further, on enquiring with him, he is said to have informed them that he had taken the alleged quantity of contraband to a grocery shop run by one Balaji at Mevalur Kuppam Village for the purpose of selling the same and earning money. Later, the accused was arrested at about 14:30 hours, and on the Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025same day, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the complaint.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 respondent police registered a case in Crime No.511 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 123 of BNS r/w 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is almost completed and only the final report is yet to be filed by the first respondent.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 Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025investigated 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 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025quashment. 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 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 :-Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025“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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025whether 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, respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.511 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a 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.13.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderkvPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,kvCrl.O.P.No.7290 of 202513.03.2025Page 9 of 9

Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.4670 of 2025Karkavelraja... PetitionerVsState rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Sriperumbudur Police Station,Kancheepuram District.(Crime No.511 of 2024. ... RespondentPrayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Crime No.511 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner herein. For Petitioner :Mr.A.MurugavelFor Respondent :Mr.A.Gopinath,Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025O RDER This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.511 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2024, based on a complaint taken suo motu by the respondent police, it was alleged that on 01.07.2024, at about 14:00 hours, when the respondent police, along with their police party, went for a vehicular check at Mevalur Kuppam Village near Arun XL Apartment, and on suspicion, they checked the ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. TN.20 AL 9406. They enquired with the petitioner, who was said to have driven the vehicle, and on suspicion, they alleged to have found that the petitioner was in possession of some contraband, namely Vimal and Hans, totaling a quantity of 38 kgs and 700 grams. Further, on enquiring with him, he is said to have informed them that he had taken the alleged quantity of contraband to a grocery shop run by one Balaji at Mevalur Kuppam Village for the purpose of selling the same and earning money. Later, the accused was arrested at about 14:30 hours, and on the Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025same day, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the complaint.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 respondent police registered a case in Crime No.511 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 123 of BNS r/w 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is almost completed and only the final report is yet to be filed by the first respondent.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 Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025investigated 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 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025quashment. 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 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 :-Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025“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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025whether 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, respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.511 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a 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.13.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderkvPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7290 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,kvCrl.O.P.No.7290 of 202513.03.2025Page 9 of 9