High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.6278 of 20251. Venkatesh Babu2. Ravi3. Vasu ... PetitionersVs1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, Tirupathur Police Station, Tirupathur District. Crime No.775 of 2024.2. Murali ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S., to call for the records in connection with the Crime No.775 of 2024 on the file of 1st Respondent Police and quash the same.For Petitioners: Mr.N.KrishnamoorthyFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R1)1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.775 of 2024 registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, as against the petitioner.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2024 at around 9.40 A.M., the petitioners/accused and others entered the Grocery Shop of the de-facto complainant which is located next to his house and destroyed the products stored and that the petitioners/accused abused the de-facto complainant verbally by using filthy words and that the 1st petitioner/accused forced the de-facto complainant to restrain from entering his shop and his house using unparliamentary words and that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners/accused threatened the de-facto complainant and his family that they would kill them if they refuse to vacate the premises. Hence, based on the allegations, complaint was made and FIR was lodged for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025that already a civil dispute is pending between the petitioners and the second respondent, and now the second respondent has foisted a false complaint against the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.775 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 329(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025specific 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. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025complaint/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 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., 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025as 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 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025by 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, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.775 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.01.04.20257/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/NokvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Tirupathur Police Station, Tirupathur District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9501 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.9501 of 202501.04.20259/9