High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.9147 of 20251. Jagadeesan2. Dhanalakshmi... PetitionersVs1. The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-III. Gama 6, Land Fraud Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Cr.No.9 of 2025.2. Prasad.C... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in Cr.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as devoid of any merits as against the petitioner (A5 and A6).For Petitioners : M/s P.Krithika KamalFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 subject property belongs to the second respondent. It is alleged that the first accused, who is an employee of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, fabricated an allotment order in favour of the second accused and executed a sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, the second accused executed a Power of Atorney in favour of A4, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of A5 and A6. Subsequently, A5 and A6 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A3. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.9 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 109 and 120B of IPC.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20255. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners are subsequent purchasers and they have nothing to do with the allegation as alleged by the prosecution.6. Even according to the case of the prosecution, A1 challenged the allotment order and executed a sale deed in favour of the second accused. However, now the petitioners, being A5 and A6 executed Power of Attorney in favour of A3. Therefore, there is conspiracy between all the accused and there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the above said offences. 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 investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20257. 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025stage 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025conclusion 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.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.9 of 2025, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.29.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-III. Gama 6, Land Fraud Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.13697 of 202529.04.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.9147 of 20251. Jagadeesan2. Dhanalakshmi... PetitionersVs1. The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-III. Gama 6, Land Fraud Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Cr.No.9 of 2025.2. Prasad.C... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 /Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in Cr.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as devoid of any merits as against the petitioner (A5 and A6).For Petitioners : M/s P.Krithika KamalFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 subject property belongs to the second respondent. It is alleged that the first accused, who is an employee of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, fabricated an allotment order in favour of the second accused and executed a sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, the second accused executed a Power of Atorney in favour of A4, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of A5 and A6. Subsequently, A5 and A6 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A3. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.9 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 109 and 120B of IPC.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20255. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners are subsequent purchasers and they have nothing to do with the allegation as alleged by the prosecution.6. Even according to the case of the prosecution, A1 challenged the allotment order and executed a sale deed in favour of the second accused. However, now the petitioners, being A5 and A6 executed Power of Attorney in favour of A3. Therefore, there is conspiracy between all the accused and there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the above said offences. 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 investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 20257. 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 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025stage 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025conclusion 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.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.9 of 2025, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.29.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-III. Gama 6, Land Fraud Investigation Wing-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13697 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.13697 of 202529.04.2025Page 8 of 8