High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9757 of 20251.Shanthi2.Jaganathan .... PetitionersVs1.State Rep By The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station,Tiruvallur.Cr.No.471 of 2019.2.Bhavani .... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to call for the records and to quash the First Information Report filed against the petitioners by the first respondent in Crime No.471 of 2019 pending on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station, Tiruvallur.For Petitioners: Mr.A.M.Amutha GaneshFor R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.471 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. and 34 of IPC.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the material available on record.3. The petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A2 in Crime No.471 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. It is alleged that due to a property dispute, on 04.09.2019 at about 6.30 p.m, when the defacto complainant's father was returning home after his walk, the petitioners herein waylaid and abused him in filthy language. Further, the accused herein had pulled him down and attacked him on his chest and stomach causing injuries to the defacto complainant's father and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present criminal case arises out of a civil dispute, for which a partition suit 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025was already filed in O.S.No.28 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. The said suit was decreed by Judgment dated 19.09.2022. Now, the final decree proceedings also initiated and it is pending. Therefore, in order to escape from the execution of the decree, a false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have also lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant in Crime No.409 of 2019. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 566 of Police Standing Order. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is a counter case. The petitioner has already filed a counter complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.409 of 2019. Both the FIRs have been pending on the file of the first respondent. 5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025Court 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. 6. 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 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025appears 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.7. 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025police 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 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; .......”8. 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 both the FIRs in Crime Nos. 471 of 2019 and 409 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025of receipt of copy of this order as per the guidelines contemplated under Section 566 of Police Standing Order.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 02.04.2025drlIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No To1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station,Tiruvallur.2.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.drl7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025CRL.O.P.No.9757 of 202502.04.20258/8
Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9757 of 20251.Shanthi2.Jaganathan .... PetitionersVs1.State Rep By The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station,Tiruvallur.Cr.No.471 of 2019.2.Bhavani .... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025, to call for the records and to quash the First Information Report filed against the petitioners by the first respondent in Crime No.471 of 2019 pending on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station, Tiruvallur.For Petitioners: Mr.A.M.Amutha GaneshFor R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.471 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. and 34 of IPC.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the material available on record.3. The petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A2 in Crime No.471 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. It is alleged that due to a property dispute, on 04.09.2019 at about 6.30 p.m, when the defacto complainant's father was returning home after his walk, the petitioners herein waylaid and abused him in filthy language. Further, the accused herein had pulled him down and attacked him on his chest and stomach causing injuries to the defacto complainant's father and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present criminal case arises out of a civil dispute, for which a partition suit 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025was already filed in O.S.No.28 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. The said suit was decreed by Judgment dated 19.09.2022. Now, the final decree proceedings also initiated and it is pending. Therefore, in order to escape from the execution of the decree, a false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have also lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant in Crime No.409 of 2019. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 566 of Police Standing Order. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is a counter case. The petitioner has already filed a counter complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.409 of 2019. Both the FIRs have been pending on the file of the first respondent. 5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025Court 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. 6. 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 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025appears 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.7. 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025police 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 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; .......”8. 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 both the FIRs in Crime Nos. 471 of 2019 and 409 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025of receipt of copy of this order as per the guidelines contemplated under Section 566 of Police Standing Order.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 02.04.2025drlIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No To1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Town Police Station,Tiruvallur.2.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.drl7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9757 of 2025CRL.O.P.No.9757 of 202502.04.20258/8