IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.14912 of 2021 N.Karikalan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai

2. Ilakkiya ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in crime No.138 of 2017 on the file of the respondent / police and to quash the same insofar as the petitioner.

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Sreela For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in crime No.138 of 2017 on the file of the respondent / police registered for offences under Sections 380 & 381 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is employed as Weighing Clerk in the Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation and at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was employed at the Amudham Retail Shop, shop No.NA 025, Chintadripet, Chennai. While being so, on 19.01.2017, the respondent had received a secret information that the dhotis and sarees meant for public distribution for pongal festival are being sold at a textile shop at Chintadripet. Based on the said secret information, the respondent along with his team had entered and searched the said textile shop functioning under the name and style of “Vetrichelvan Textiles” at Old Number 41, New Number 14, Chintadripet Old Bangla Street. In the said search of the above mentioned shop, the respondent had found that 200 dhoties and 300 sarees have been hoarded by the owner of the said shop.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent / police registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 380 & 381 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent /

police.

6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as 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. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-

"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.

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 alle