High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024and Crl.M.P.No.18593 of 2024Dr.M.Arunvel Kumar... PetitionerVs.1. The State rep byThe Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch Police Station, Chengalpattu District.(Crime No.08 of 2024)2. Balaji Rajagopalan... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.08 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Chengalpattu District and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.L.ArulmozhivarmanFor Respondents For R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For R2: Mr. R.PalaniandavanPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.08 of 2024 pending on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of IPC, as against the petitioner.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other three accused persons with an intention to cheat the second respondent, looted a sum of Rs.6,40,00,000/- by fabricating documents, forging the government records, they have registered three government lands, by defrauding the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Doctor specialized in orthopedics and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there is money dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. Without any base, the first respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2024, as against the petitioner. Hence, he has prayed to quash the same.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 20244.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that the investigation is almost over and the final report is yet to be filed.5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in pursuant to the registration of FIR, the petitioner filed petition seeking anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19730 of 2025 and this Court by an order dated 03.10.2024, granted anticipatory bail on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of rupees two crores on or before 30.12.2024 and further amount of rupees two crores on or before 31.03.2025. This Court also recorded that the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he is ready to pay Rs.4 crores. However, the petitioner did not abide the undertaking given before this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.7.It is seen that, considering the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of rupees four crores. However, the petitioner did not comply the said order. Further on perusal of the First Information Report it is revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, 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 the 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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024evidence 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 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.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 20249.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 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;.............Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024xv) 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; .......”10.In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the nature of crime, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.08 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.02.2025Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsTo1.The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch Police Station, Chengalpattu District.2. The Public ProsecutorMadras High Court,Chennai.Crl.O.P.No.32671 of 2024and Crl.M.P.No.18593 of 202419.02.2025Page 8 of 8