BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.2974 of 2022

1.A.Saranika

2.Tamilarasi ... Petitioners/

Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs.

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Cumbum, Theni District.

(Crime No.16 of 2022) ... 1^st Respondent/

Complainant

2. K.Honestraj ... 2^nd Respondent/

Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case registered in First Information Report in Crime No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Eswaran For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R.1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR as against the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that he already returned the bundle to the petitioner and also given a change of vakalath. Even then, the petitioners failed to represent on their behalf before this Court. That apart, on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the defacto complainant has completed his Law Degree, but he could not get his name enrolled as an Advocate. He has been married to M.Yogeshree and she has been working as an Executive Officer and posted at Kanyakumari District. There are no issues to the defact complainant out of such wedlock. While so, some differences of opinion have arisen between the defacto complainant and his wife. Hence, both were seperated and they have been residing seperately. He would also submit that in the said circumstances, the first petitioner and the defacto complainant were school friends during their school days. Further, the first petitoner has got married to one Jagadeesan of Cumbum Village, Theni District. In fact, there are no contacts between the defacto complainant and the said first petitioner. While so, during 2014, there had been an occasion that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant could meet each other through the phones often. During such period, they developed friendship and the first petitioner had informed the defacto complainant that she was married with the above said Jagadeesan and out of such wedlock, they were blessed with a male child and thereafter, there are some differences of opinion arisen in thier marital life, resulting in which, the said Jagadeesan has left the first petitioner and the male child and went to abroad for avocation and also informed that there was a mutual consent divorce between them.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 16 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(1)

IPC as against the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, 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.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255