High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8108 of 2025Arulvasan @ Surya... PetitionerVs.State rep. by,The Inspector of Police,D-6, Anna Square,Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station,Chennai.(Crime No.396/2022) ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2022, pending investigation on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.D.KalaivaniFor Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side)O R D E RPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 of IPC and Sections 184, 188 and 189 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2022 at around 00:30 hrs, while the Special Assistant Inspector of Police, D2 Anna Salai Traffic Police Station, was on night patrol duty near Spencer Plaza, he witnessed more than five motorcycles racing dangerously from Bilal Hotel on Anna Salai towards Gemini Bridge via Woods Road and Express Avenue. The riders were performing wheelies and other reckless stunts, thereby causing panic among the public. In the process of trying to detain the motorcyclists, they sped away recklessly, evading police interception. However, two registration numbers were recorded, namely, YAMAHA TN 36 D 5915 and JUPITER TN 06 AA 4352. Based on this, a case was registered in Crime No.396 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 308 of the IPC and Sections of 184, 188, and 189 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any offence. It is contended that only two vehicle numbers are mentioned in the FIR, and the inclusion of the petitioner’s vehicle was due to a mistaken identity. That apart, there is no specific material or evidence connecting the petitioner to the incident. Hence, the FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence and was found to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. The petitioner’s vehicle was identified through CCTV footage and corroborated by eyewitness accounts. It is further submitted that the petitioner was among those who participated in the illegal racing and wheeling activity, thereby endangering public safety. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner is fully justified. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 20256. On a perusal of the First Information Report, this Court finds that there are specific and serious allegations as against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of cognizable offences and warrant thorough investigation. It is well settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of facts. The FIR in the present case discloses a prima facie commission of cognizable offences. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage. The investigation machinery must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law to unearth the truth and bring the guilty to book.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 Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025undertake 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 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 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 encyclopedia 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 Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025Magistrate 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 in Crime No.396 of 2022. The respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.396 of 2022 and file the final report within a period of twelve 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. .Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 202519.03.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkTo1.The Inspector of Police,D-6, Anna Square,Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station,Chennai.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkCrl.O.P.No.8108 of 2025Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 202519.03.2025Page 10 of 10

Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.8108 of 2025Arulvasan @ Surya... PetitionerVs.State rep. by,The Inspector of Police,D-6, Anna Square,Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station,Chennai.(Crime No.396/2022) ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2022, pending investigation on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.D.KalaivaniFor Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side)O R D E RPage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308 of IPC and Sections 184, 188 and 189 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2022 at around 00:30 hrs, while the Special Assistant Inspector of Police, D2 Anna Salai Traffic Police Station, was on night patrol duty near Spencer Plaza, he witnessed more than five motorcycles racing dangerously from Bilal Hotel on Anna Salai towards Gemini Bridge via Woods Road and Express Avenue. The riders were performing wheelies and other reckless stunts, thereby causing panic among the public. In the process of trying to detain the motorcyclists, they sped away recklessly, evading police interception. However, two registration numbers were recorded, namely, YAMAHA TN 36 D 5915 and JUPITER TN 06 AA 4352. Based on this, a case was registered in Crime No.396 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 308 of the IPC and Sections of 184, 188, and 189 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any offence. It is contended that only two vehicle numbers are mentioned in the FIR, and the inclusion of the petitioner’s vehicle was due to a mistaken identity. That apart, there is no specific material or evidence connecting the petitioner to the incident. Hence, the FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence and was found to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. The petitioner’s vehicle was identified through CCTV footage and corroborated by eyewitness accounts. It is further submitted that the petitioner was among those who participated in the illegal racing and wheeling activity, thereby endangering public safety. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner is fully justified. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 20256. On a perusal of the First Information Report, this Court finds that there are specific and serious allegations as against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of cognizable offences and warrant thorough investigation. It is well settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of facts. The FIR in the present case discloses a prima facie commission of cognizable offences. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage. The investigation machinery must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law to unearth the truth and bring the guilty to book.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 Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025undertake 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 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 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 encyclopedia 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 Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025Magistrate 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 in Crime No.396 of 2022. The respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.396 of 2022 and file the final report within a period of twelve 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. .Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 202519.03.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkTo1.The Inspector of Police,D-6, Anna Square,Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station,Chennai.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkCrl.O.P.No.8108 of 2025Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 8108 of 202519.03.2025Page 10 of 10