High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.8376 of 2025V.Swetha ... PetitionerVs1. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet – 632401. 2. Moorthy ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to quash the First Information Report filed in F.I.R.No.296 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent-Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District. For Petitioner: Mr.C.UmashankarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R11/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No. 296 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police.2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally five accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as the fifth accused. The petitioner, along with other accused, attacked the de facto complainant with a wooden log, hands, and legs on 26.06.2024 due to previous enmity. They also scolded him with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a counter complaint was lodged and the same has been registered as an FIR in Crime No.297 of 2024. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any basis, the first respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.296 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025and 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner and other accused persons. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Pleader (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost complete and the first respondent police yet to file the final report.5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, 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 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025has 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 judgement 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025analysis 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 judgement 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;5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 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 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025consider 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 both the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.296 and 297 of 2024 by following the procedure laid down under the Police Standing Order 566 and to file final reports within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet – 632401. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12646 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.12646 of 202525.04.2025 9/9