The defence at the earlier stage cannot be looked into for quashing the FIR if the averments in the FIR constitute a prima facie case for cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.No.61 of 2019 dated 06.02.2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Manavalan Nagar Police Station, Thiruvallur District and quash the same as illegal.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the FIR, which was registered in Cr.No.61 of 2019 dated 06.02.2019, on the file of the 1st respondent police, as illegal

2. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

3. First of all, on going through the order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur, it seems that though the FIR has been registered for the offence under Sections 249(b), 341, 384 and 506 (ii) of IPC, the petitioners were remanded to the judicial custody only for the offence under Sections 249 (b) and 341 of IPC.

4. Secondly, in respect to the averments found in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are college students, studying Law. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is running an illegal wine shop bar at Manavalan Nagar. He acts like a gangster and he always roam with rowdies and use them as his bodyguards. When the said act was questioned by the petitioners, with the support of police officials, the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioners, resultantly, a case has been registered against the petitioners. He would further contend that on the date of occurrence, the 2nd petitioner was stayed in a hotel situated at Thoothukudi, further the 1st petitioner was in his house. More than that, the complaint pertaining to this petition has been lodged by the 2nd respondent with a delay of three hours, which all shows that the present case has been registered with motivation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend that during the time, when the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has refused to remand the petitioners, by saying that the documents produced by the 1st respondent did not establish a prima facie case as against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioners with an ill motive.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent police would contend that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, are all related to the factual aspects, so the same have to be checked only during the time of investigation or during the time of trial. He would further submit that in the absence of any investigation, this Court cannot conclude this petition, that a false case has been registered against the petitioners.

7. On considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is a settled position that if the averments found in the FIR constituted a prima facie case for cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed relying upon flimsy reasons. In this regard, our Hon’ble Apex Court in SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. in Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019, has held as follows;

“5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. 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 So