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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 4376 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.2777 of 2025 Balaji .... Petitioner Vs

1.State by The Inspector of Police, P-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.139 of 2024)

2.Malini Ravindran .... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings concerned in Crime No.139 of 2024 on the file of Inspector of Police, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2 : Mr.T.Gowtham Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Rahul

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.139 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the sole accused and was a tenant of one Ranganathan, who is the brother of the defacto complainant in respect of the premises owned by the defacto complainant's brother. Even after his demise, the petitioner forged his signature and fabricated a rental agreement in his favour and misusing the same. Hence, the case was registered.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.139 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, which is pending for investigation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused and was a tenant under one Ranganathan. The petitioner has already vacated the premises and the entire premises was demolished. That apart, the original lease agreement is in the custody of the defacto complainant. Further, a civil suit in O.S.No.6952 of 2023 is pending on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai filed by the petitioner seeking permanent injunction.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the rental premises is in a dilapidated condition and with due permission obtained from the Corporation of Chennai, the petitioner proceeded to demolish the entire structure. However, the petitioner fabricated the lease agreement by forging the signature of the deceased Ranganathan and unlawfully occupied the premises. Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

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

7. 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 its 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.

8. 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 a