Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & ors

Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.6715 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.4282 of 2025A.Jayamoorthy @ Moorthy... PetitionerVs.1.State, rep. by Inspector of Police,Cheyyur Police Station,Kancheepuram District.(Crime No.340 of 2012). 2.J.Sundarrajan ..RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.340 of 2012 dated 02.06.2012 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.Deva Arul PrakashPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side)For R2: Mr.G.Jaisi VaramarajO R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.340 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) of IPC r/w 307 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution, as per FIR, is that on 02.06.2012, at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner (A2) along with others, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the victim and caused serious injuries.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the FIR was registered in the year 2012, the first respondent has failed to file the final report for more than a decade, thereby causing undue hardship to the petitioner. Hence, he prays to quash the FIR.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 20254. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side), on instructions, submitted that the investigation has now been completed and the final report has been produced before this Court. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.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 thorough investigaton. It is well settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia 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 Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025Pokarnekar 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 stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025Court 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. .................... 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025not 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. However, considering the fact the Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 2025crime is of the year 2012, the first respondent is directed to file the final report in Crime No.340 of 2012 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.21.04.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking ordershkG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.shkTo1. The Inspector of Police,Cheyyur Police Station,Kancheepuram District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 6715 of 20252. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.6715 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.4282 of 202521.04.2025Page 8 of 8