High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.9426 of 2025Saravannan... PetitionerVs1. State rep by The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.129 of 20242. Parameswari... 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 the Crime No.129 of 2024 on the file of first respondent and to quash the sameFor Petitioner : Mr.R.Lawrence JeevakumarFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.129 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.13999 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 is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.133/3B in Ernavoor Village, Thiruvattiyur Taluk, North Chennai. It is alleged that A1 created a general Power of Attorney in his favour vide Document No.2582 of 2017 dated 05.05.2017. On the strength of the General Power of Attorney, A1 executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.129 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B and 34 of IPC.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is a innocent purchaser and he has nothing to do with the offences as alleged by the prosecution.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 20256. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5738 of 2025, by an order dated 07.03.2025. This Court specifically directed the petitioner to comply with the undertaking affidavit filed before this Court, within a period of eight weeks.7. A perusal of the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner undertakes to cancel the sale deed executed in his favour. However, no cancellation of sale deed has been executed by the petitioner so far.8. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B and 34 of IPC. 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025procedures prescribed in the Code. 9. 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025therein, 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.10. 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.13999 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; .......”11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.129 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.129 of 2024, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025receipt of a copy of this order.12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.30.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnTo 1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Police Station, Chennai District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13999 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnCrl.O.P.No.13999 of 202530.04.2025Page 8 of 8