High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.8415 of 2025Valarmathi... PetitionerVs1. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal. (Crime No.16 of 2024)2. K.Saraswathi... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the case in Crime No.16 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal and Quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyappa RajFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her brother one Palaniyappan are the rightful heirs of their father, Muthagounder. The defacto complainant and her brother were in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S.Nos.2079 and 1849 of Chozhasiramani Village, which were allotted to them. After the demise of their father, their mother one Paavayi and the said Palaniyappan continued to enjoy the property. On 09.12.2005, the said Palaniyappan mortgaged the property at the Moolachi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Thereafter, the said Palaniyappan passed away on 01.04.2021 due to health issues. While being so, one Subramani and his son Sivakumar, with a bad intention of claiming the property, impersonated themselves as legal heirs of the said Muthagounder. With the help of the then Village Administrative Officer of Chozhasiramani, they caused the inclusion of names of Subramani, Kavipriya and Ilaiyappan in the title deed standing in the name of the defacto complainant's father. Based on the said manipulated records, Subramani obtained the title deed in his name. Thereafter, using the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025title deed, the accused sold 3 acres and 61 cents of land to one Saravanan, who in turn sold the property in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.16 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 467 and 420 of IPC.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and she is no way connected with the other accused.6. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner is arrayed as A4, who is none other than the wife of A1 and the accused committed very serious and heinous offence by impersonating themselves and registered the sale deed. It is stated that now A1 passed away. 7. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the offences under Sections 419, 467 and 420 of IPC. That apart, now, it is in FIR stage, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025not 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 investigating machinery has to step in to 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 does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025set 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 :-“23. .................... 7vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 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 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; .......”Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 202510. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.16 of 2024 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.12724 of 202524.04.2025Page 8 of 8