High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 8792 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.5811 of 2025S.Sankar....PetitionerVsState by1. The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing,Tiruvallur,Tiruvallur District.(Cr.No.1 of 2024)2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Ponneri Circle,Ponneri,Tiruvallur District.....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records concerned in Cr.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ecoomic Offence Wing, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.For Petitioner: Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E RPage 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC r/w. 34 of IPC.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with three other employees, jointly committed irregularities in respect of issuance of loans and savings bank accounts. Based on this, the defacto complainant ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Based on the enquiry report, the defacto complainant filed a complaint alleging that the employees of the Minjur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society committed irregularities and caused loss more than Rs.1.15 crores.3.?The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was appointed as a Clerk at J.J.110, Minjur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Minjur – 601203, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, on 27.10.1993. He was later promoted to the post of Secretary on 01.03.2018. During his tenure as Secretary, the day-to-day affairs of the Society, including sanctioning of agricultural loans to members, were Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025managed by the Elected Board of Directors. He further submitted that 32 members of the Society availed crop loan to the tune of Rs.3,33,88,000/-Out of these, 26 members repaid a total of Rs.2,81,44,076/-, which was credited to the District Central Cooperative Bank. The remaining amount was waived under the Tamil Nadu Government's loan waiver scheme, based on the recommendation of a high-level committee constituted for this purpose. The defacto complainant was also a member of this committee. After scrutinizing the records, the committee recommended the waiver, and the loan amount was accordingly waived. He further submitted that the beneficiaries have now repaid the entire amount. Therefore, the repayment of the entire loan amount renders the proceedings unnecessary. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.5. 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. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025This 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 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025taken 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.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., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025vii) 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 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 Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025investigate 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.1 of 2024 and file a 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing,Tiruvallur,Tiruvallur District.(Cr.No.1 of 2024)2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Ponneri Circle,Ponneri,Tiruvallur District.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.LppCrl.O.P.No.8792 of 202525.03.2025Page 9 of 9

Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 8792 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.5811 of 2025S.Sankar....PetitionerVsState by1. The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing,Tiruvallur,Tiruvallur District.(Cr.No.1 of 2024)2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Ponneri Circle,Ponneri,Tiruvallur District.....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records concerned in Cr.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ecoomic Offence Wing, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.For Petitioner: Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E RPage 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC r/w. 34 of IPC.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with three other employees, jointly committed irregularities in respect of issuance of loans and savings bank accounts. Based on this, the defacto complainant ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Based on the enquiry report, the defacto complainant filed a complaint alleging that the employees of the Minjur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society committed irregularities and caused loss more than Rs.1.15 crores.3.?The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was appointed as a Clerk at J.J.110, Minjur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Minjur – 601203, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, on 27.10.1993. He was later promoted to the post of Secretary on 01.03.2018. During his tenure as Secretary, the day-to-day affairs of the Society, including sanctioning of agricultural loans to members, were Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025managed by the Elected Board of Directors. He further submitted that 32 members of the Society availed crop loan to the tune of Rs.3,33,88,000/-Out of these, 26 members repaid a total of Rs.2,81,44,076/-, which was credited to the District Central Cooperative Bank. The remaining amount was waived under the Tamil Nadu Government's loan waiver scheme, based on the recommendation of a high-level committee constituted for this purpose. The defacto complainant was also a member of this committee. After scrutinizing the records, the committee recommended the waiver, and the loan amount was accordingly waived. He further submitted that the beneficiaries have now repaid the entire amount. Therefore, the repayment of the entire loan amount renders the proceedings unnecessary. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.5. 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. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025This 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 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025taken 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.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., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025vii) 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 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 Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025investigate 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.1 of 2024 and file a 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing,Tiruvallur,Tiruvallur District.(Cr.No.1 of 2024)2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Ponneri Circle,Ponneri,Tiruvallur District.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8792 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.LppCrl.O.P.No.8792 of 202525.03.2025Page 9 of 9