High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.8085 of 20251. S.Deepan @ Deepan Rajkumar2. N.Shamruth Ram... PetitionersVs1. Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazar Police Station, J.N.Street, Puducherry. Cr.No.57/20252. M.Kumar The Sub-Inspector of Police (Traffic), Traffic Police Station (East), JN Street, Puducherry.... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to impugned FIR registered in Crime No.57/2025 dated 22-03-2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash same.For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Sriram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.KannanFor R1 : Mr.K.S.Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Pondy)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.57 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is the Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station (East), JN Street, Puducherry. It is alleged that after completing his duty, the second respondent went to Madurai Veedu Hotel along with his friend for dinner and was standing near the hotel premises. While being so, a red colour Hyundai, i10 car bearing Registration No.PY 01 CL 1008, came in a rash and negligent manner. On noticing this, the defacto complainant stopped the car and questioned the manner of driving. It is further alleged that the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked him in throat and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, due to severe pain, the defacto complainant and his friends went to a nearby hospital for taking medical treatment. Hence, the complaint.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 20254. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.57 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 121(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 as against the petitioners.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the CCTV footages, it was the complainant who entered the “No Entry” zone from the opposite direction and the same was questioned by the petitioners. Immediately, the second respondent, who is being the Sub Inspector of Police, assaulted the petitioners and caused injuries to them and the petitioners were taken to the hospital. However, on the complaint lodged by the petitioners, no FIR has been registered.6. A perusal of FIR revealed that there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 121(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. That apart, now, it is in FIR stage, 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 the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025investigating 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025appears 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.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. .................... 7vi) 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 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 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; .......”9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.57 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.57 of 2025 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is further directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioners while filing the final report in Crime No.57 of 2025.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazar Police Station, J.N.Street, Puducherry.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.12126 of 202523.04.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.8085 of 20251. S.Deepan @ Deepan Rajkumar2. N.Shamruth Ram... PetitionersVs1. Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazar Police Station, J.N.Street, Puducherry. Cr.No.57/20252. M.Kumar The Sub-Inspector of Police (Traffic), Traffic Police Station (East), JN Street, Puducherry.... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to impugned FIR registered in Crime No.57/2025 dated 22-03-2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash same.For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Sriram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.KannanFor R1 : Mr.K.S.Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Pondy)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025 ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.57 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is the Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station (East), JN Street, Puducherry. It is alleged that after completing his duty, the second respondent went to Madurai Veedu Hotel along with his friend for dinner and was standing near the hotel premises. While being so, a red colour Hyundai, i10 car bearing Registration No.PY 01 CL 1008, came in a rash and negligent manner. On noticing this, the defacto complainant stopped the car and questioned the manner of driving. It is further alleged that the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked him in throat and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, due to severe pain, the defacto complainant and his friends went to a nearby hospital for taking medical treatment. Hence, the complaint.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 20254. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.57 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 121(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 as against the petitioners.5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the CCTV footages, it was the complainant who entered the “No Entry” zone from the opposite direction and the same was questioned by the petitioners. Immediately, the second respondent, who is being the Sub Inspector of Police, assaulted the petitioners and caused injuries to them and the petitioners were taken to the hospital. However, on the complaint lodged by the petitioners, no FIR has been registered.6. A perusal of FIR revealed that there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 121(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. That apart, now, it is in FIR stage, 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 the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025investigating 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025appears 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.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. .................... 7vi) 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 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 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; .......”9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.57 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.57 of 2025 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is further directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioners while filing the final report in Crime No.57 of 2025.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazar Police Station, J.N.Street, Puducherry.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12126 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.12126 of 202523.04.2025Page 8 of 8