Courts are to allow investigations to proceed unless there is clear evidence that the FIR lacks substance or fails to disclose a cognizable offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.12385 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.8216 of 2025 Seenivasan ... Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Cr.No.260/23) ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the first information report in Crime No.260 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023 pending investigation on the file of the respondent/Police and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murugan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No.260 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were found in possession of prohibited tobacco products. Therefore, the respondent police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.260 of 2023.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been implicated as an accused only on the ground that the confession statement given by the co-accused, and there was no recovery of the prohibited tobacco products from the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.260 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 273 & 328 of IPC, Section 20(2) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is yet to final report.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that all the accused persons were in conscious possession of prohibited tobacco products worth about Rs.6,75,000/-. The petitioner's name was also mentioned in the First Information Report, and there are specific allegations 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.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgement 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 alle