O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.284 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police.

2.The facts in brief are that the husband of the respondent No.2, by name Kannan was running a steel shop in the land adjacent to their house situated at 279, Jeeva Nagar 1st Street, Jaihindpuram and in the business, he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. The said Kannan borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from one Sivapriya and committed default in payment of interest. Accused No.1, Sivapriya and 6 others tried to grab the land of the respondent No.2 by creating forged documents, on which the petitioner has filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under 156(3) Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.8518 of 2021 and as per the directions of the learned Magistrate, a case has been registered against 7 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 341, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and the respondent No.2 and her family members by offering to sell their land have cheated him to the tune of Rs.1 Crore. It is submitted further that the criminal case registered against the petitioner will not sustain as the police failed to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Another v. State of U.P., reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287, thereby, the FIR can be quashed as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.

284 of 2023 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false. This Court while considering the application under 482 Cr.P.C., cannot decide as to which version of the petitioner or the defacto complainant is correct. Unless regular trial is conducted by giving opportunity to both the parties concerned and only after conclusion of trial, the trial Court will come to the conclusion in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

6.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the defacto complainant submits that the FIR cannot be quashed unless there is a strong material as during the course of investigation, there is likelihood of the evidence may be collected by the Police against the accused and submitted further that as per FIR there are clean overt acts against the petitioner/accused. On going through the records including the complaint, there is a prima facie material against the petitioner. Hence, on this count, the FIR filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

7. Normally, if a complaint is filed before the police, the police would register FIR in case cognizable offence is made out and proceed with investigation. However, in case the police fails to register FIR, the aggrieved party is expected to send a complaint to the concerned Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. and in case, if still there is no positive response, then the aggrieved person can file a complaint under Section 156(3) if Cr.P.C. seeking direction from the learned Magistrate Court to the police to investigate the case. However, it has become practice for most of the complainants to file complaint before the Court directly either under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. without even approaching the police thereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed elaborate orders in Priyanka Srivastava & Another v. State of U.P., reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 and in the case of Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2022 (5) SCC

639.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava observed as follows:-

"29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants a