High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.4013 of 2025R.Sachchidanandam... Petitioner Vs1. State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (AWPS), Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District. (Cr.No.27 of 2024)2. Chitra ... RespondentsPrayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Cr.No.27 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.For Petitioner :Mr.R.Naresh KumarFor Respondents :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.27 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No. 27 of 2024, alleging that the petitioner sexually harassed the second respondent. Further, the petitioner is working as Assistant Head Master in Kommampattu Panchayat Union Middle School, and in the same school, the second respondent is working as a Teacher on consolidated pay. Utilizing the said circumstances, the petitioner used to sexually harass her. The petitioner and the Head Master of the said School are husband and wife. While that being so, on 29.10.2024, the petitioner tracked the second respondent to the Head Master's house. After reaching the Head Master's house, the second respondent found that the Head Master was not available in his house and only to harass her and commit sexual abuse, she was brought to his house. Immediately, she called her husband, and she was rescued from the petitioner. Hence, the complaintPage 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after registering the First Information Report, there was a meeting of the School teachers, and in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, they concluded that no further proceedings can be taken against the petitioner. It was also communicated to the Block Educational Officer. He would further 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.27 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 75(1) (i), 75(1) (ii) and 78(1) (i) of BNS, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 20256. 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. That apart, the petitioner committed very serious offence as against the petitioner who is working as Temporary Staff. 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025complaint, 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.Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 20258. 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 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 Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025be 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, first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 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.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 202510.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.06.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderkvTo 1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (AWPS), Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6258 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,kvCrl.O.P.No.6258 of 202506.03.2025Page 9 of 9