High Court · 2025

Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025andCrl. M.P.No.7050 of 2025Mathiyalagan... PetitionerVs1. State represented by The Inspector of Police (Crime) CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai. (Crime No.146 of 2024)2. Mouttou ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the impugned FIR lodged as against the petitioner herein in Crime No.146 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr. M. ShreedharFor 1st Respondent : Mr. R. Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.146 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.03.2023, the defacto complainant lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, alleging that the defacto complainant's Company, namely ONSKY Technology Pvt., Ltd entered 2 commercial agreements with the petitioner/accused for theatrical rights of the new Tamil movie “MAHA” produced by the petitioner and received advance. Later the petitioner breached agreement and sold the movie to another person and the movie was released without the defacto complainant's knowledge and hence, the movie made profit and same was not shared with the defacto complainant and hence for recovery of money, the above complaint. Thus, without the NOC of the defacto complainant, the petitioner/accused released the movie “MAHA”, a Tamil feature film, which thereby caused the defacto complainant a loss of Rs.5.5 crore.3. Further, the petitioner submits that initially a police complaint was filed in Teynampet Police station, since police did not take any action since the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025transaction was commercial in nature and the dispute was civil in nature, the police did not register any complaint and hence after formally filing a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, a petition under Section 156(3) was filed and direction was obtained to the Central Crime Branch and hence without any preliminary enquiry, the respondent police registered an FIR in CCB-1 Xcr.No.146/2024.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no allegations to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. It is only loan transaction between the petitioner and the second respondent.5. As per the memorandum of understanding, the second respondent intends to settle the issue even then the first respondent did not agree for the same and made the petitioner to wait.6. On perusal of the FIR, revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 20257. 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. 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 into 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025does 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.9. 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 :-Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025“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 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 Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025whether 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. However, considering the crime is of the year 2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.146 of 2024 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.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.07.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation :Yes/NoATTo 1. The Inspector of Police (Crime) CCB-1, Vepery, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,ATCrl. O.P. No. 10604 of 2025 andCrl. M.P.No.7050 of 202507.04.2025Page 8 of 8