High Court · 2025

Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025andCrl. M.P. No. 7490 of 2025G.Rajkumar... PetitionerVs1. State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Salem City, Salem. (Crime No.4 of 2025)2. K.R. Shanmuga Sundharam... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the entire records concerned in Crime No.4 of 2025 on the file of the the Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Salem City, Salem and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.For Petitioner:Mr. C. PrakasamFor Respondents:Mr. A. Gopinath, for R1Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.4 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent.2. The case of the prosecution is that, the property belongs to the second respondent. By forgery and falsification of the second respondent's life certificate, the petitioner sold the property by registered sale deed dated 10.06.2021 vide Document No. 1920 of 2021.3. On perusal of the FIR, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC.4. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to quash the FIR.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 its threshold. This Court finds that Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step into 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 take 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025trial 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.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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025to 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 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, considering the crime is of the year 2025, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025No.4 of 2025 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.10. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition on compromise.23.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NoATPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025To 1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Salem City, Salem. (Crime No.4 of 2025)2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,ATCrl. O.P. No. 11187 of 2025 andCrl. M.P. No. 7490 of 202523.04.2025Page 8 of 8