IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.32699 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18633 of 2024 Suganthram ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2. The Station House Officer, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the connected records made in Crime No.121/2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the same as illegal to secure ends of justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.121 of 2024, pending on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) & 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, as against the petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2023, the respondent police received an information that near Text tool bridge, Text toll canteen road, one person was selling the banned drugs. On information, they went to the place of occurrence and found that one Naveenkumar was in possession of the drugs and was selling the same. Therefore, the respondent police arrested the said person and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is also involved in the crime. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent persons and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. On the confession statement recorded from the arrested accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2023, as against the petitioner.

Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police submitted that based on the confession statement given by the co-accused the petitioner was arrested and there was recovery from the petitioner to the tune of 300 grams of ganja. Now the investigation is almost over and yet to file final report.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. It is seen that the petitioner was arrested for the offences under the NDPS act, and there are recovery from the petitioner. Further on perusal of the First Information Report it is revealed 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. 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 complai