High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 02.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9536 of 2023andCrl.M.P.Nos.6228 of 2023 and 6483 of 2025K.Venkatesh ... PetitionerVs.1. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, ALGSC- Central Crime Branch Avadi Commissionerate, Chennai - 600 054.2. Sulthan ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of Inspector of Police, ALGSC- Central Crime Branch, Avadi Commissionerate, Chennai and quash the same. Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023 For Petitioner: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate, for Mr.P.ChandrasekarFor R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)For R2: Mr.P.KrishnanO R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution, as per FIR, is that the petitioner, along with others, conspired to fabricate forged documents, obtained fake pattas by bribing public officials, and illegally registered settlement deeds, thereby obtaining unlawful possession of the second respondent's land and the access road. They allegedly cheated both the Government and the second respondent for financial gain and issued threats demanding money. Based on this, a case was registered in Crime No.19 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023420 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and is falsely implicated based on the second respondent's claim. No material or documentary evidence has been produced against the petitioner; all documents pertain only to the second and third accused. The complaint appears to be motivated and an afterthought, as earlier complaints made no mention of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to quash the FIR.4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the investigation has been concluded, and necessary steps are being taken to file the final report before the jurisdictional court.5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.6. On a perusal of the First Information Report, this Court finds that there are specific and serious allegations as against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of cognizable offences and warrant Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023thorough investigation. The Court is satisfied that the investigation has reached its final stage, and any challenge at this point is premature. The petitioner’s role, if any, can be determined based on the final report and during trial It is well settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of facts. The FIR in the present case discloses a prima facie commission of cognizable offences. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage. The investigation machinery must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law to unearth the truth and bring the guilty to book.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 Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023evidence 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 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 Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023complaint, 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;vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;..............xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia 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 Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023the 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; .......”9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.19 of 2023. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.19 of 2023 and file the 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.Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 202310. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.02.04.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkTo1. Inspector of Police,Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023 ALGSC- Central Crime Branch Avadi Commissionerate, Chennai - 600 054.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9536 of 2023Crl.O.P.No.9536 of 2023andCrl.M.P.Nos.6228 of 2023 and 6483 of 202502.04.2025Page 10 of 10