Quashing of FIRs is exceptional; a prima facie case necessitates continued investigation.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.6471, 6475 & 6478 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4130, 4133 & 4135 of 2025 Rishi Bhandari ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6471/2025 Sushil Shah ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6475/2025 Hemant Varma ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6478/2025 Vs

1.State Rep By, Inspector of Police, P5, Otteri Police Station, Otteri, Chennai.

2.Thirunavukarasu ..... Respondents in all Crl.OPs COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No. 240 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P5, Otteri Police station, Otteri.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Madhuprakash in all Crl.OPs For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan in all Crl.OPs Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.240 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 354C, 268, 287, 294(b), 336, 441, 506(1) of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

3. All the petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.240 of 2024. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a common order.

4. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 354C, 268, 287, 294(b), 336, 441, 506(1) of IPC as against the accused persons. It is alleged by the second respondent that while the second respondent was serving as a security, the accused has operated a drone camera near the residential area where women were residing. The women allegedly felt threatened as it was claimed that the accused had captured video footage using the drone camera. When it was questioned by the second respondent, the accused abused him using filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

5. 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 the 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.

6. 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 con