FIR cannot be quashed unless there are no allegations constituting a cognizable offence; the investigation must be allowed to proceed.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.83 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. 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, while the defacto complainant was performing his official duty in connection with the search for a suspect, one Veera @ Veerakumar, on 15.02.2025, the said suspect was found in a Maruthi Suzuki Swift car bearing registration number TN 88 H 8778. When the defacto complainant attempted to apprehend the suspect, the petitioners herein intercepted him and entered into a wordy quarrel with the police officials, thereby obstructing the defacto complainant in discharge of his official duties.

Hence, the complaint.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.83 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 262, 263, 132 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4. The first accused is the accused in Crime No.38 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 303(2), 308(2), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The present FIR has been filed when the second respondent and his team came to arrest the first accused, the petitioners had resisted them from arresting the first accused. The third petitioner is the wife of the first accused, the first accused is the brother of the second accused. Therefore, there is no overtact as against the petitioners and prayed to quash the FIR.

6. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first petitioner is arrayed as second accused and he is a history sheeter. At the time of arresting the first accused, all the petitioners herein resisted the police officials from arresting the first accused, scolded them with filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences.

7. A perusal of FIR revealed that there are specific allegations as against the accused to constitute the offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 262, 263, 132 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 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 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 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. There