High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025S.Rajendran... PetitionerVs1. The Inspector of Police, M-4 Police Station, Redhills, Chennai – 52.2. D.Ramakrishnan... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the first respondent to quash the FIR in Crime No.1105 of 2024 against the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.V.NandagopalanFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1105 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 20253. The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.110, Plot No.605, Old Door No.12, New Door No.11, Selva Vinayagar Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai, ad-measuring 1800 sq.ft. While being so, the first accused fabricated the documents purporting himself to be owner of the property and sold out the same in favour of the second accused, in the year 2016. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.1105 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant has no title over the property. In fact, in respect of the very same property, already a suit is pending in O.S.No.94 of 2018. When the civil suit is pending, the second respondent lodged the present complaint.6. A perusal of records revealed that the defacto complainant has title over the property and he has claimed the title in respect of the subject property by a registered sale deed vide Document No.5300 dated 15.07.1991. He is also Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025in possession of the original title deed. While being so, the first accused viz., the petitioner herein, fabricated the documents purporting himself to be the owner of the property and sold out the same in favour of the second accused.7. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the above said offences. That apart, now, it is in FIR stage, 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 its 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. 8. 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.11206 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 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.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 20259. 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. .................... 7vi) 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;Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025.............(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; .......”10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1105 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1105 of 2024 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.16.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025To 1. The Inspector of Police, M-4 Police Station, Redhills, Chennai – 52.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11206 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.11206 of 202516.04.2025Page 8 of 8