IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.03.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.O.P.No.5121 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.No.2743 of 2022

Sagunthala

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

Sozhatharam Police Station,

Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.104 of 2018)

2.Kupusamy

... Respondents

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section

482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the

records in Crime No.104 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st

respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police

Station, Cuddalore District, in so far as this petitioner is

concerned and quash the same.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.K.Balu

For R1

:

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call

for the records in Crime No.104 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st

respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Sozhatharam Police

Station, Cuddalore District, in so far as this petitioner is

concerned and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A7 in this

case. The petitioner is working as a Noon Meal Organizer at

Pudaiyur Main Road Anganwadi. The alleged occurence is stated

to have taken place on 10.05.2018 and the petitioner was

attending her office from 9.00 a.m to 02.30 p.m and she had

finished her work at Anganwadi and thereafter, she had

attended the Child Development Project office for receiving

the eggs and she was present there till 06.00 p.m., The

petitioner has also produced necessary certificates to prove

her presence at the relevant place during the time of

occurence. The defacto complainant, who has previous enemity

towards the family of the petitioner, on account of existing

civil suits pending between them, had falsely implicated the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

entire family members including the petitioner to wreak

venjeance. He would further submit that the petitioner was not

at all present at the scene of occurence during the relevant

time and thereby, he would seek to quash the proceedings in

Crime No.104 of 2018.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit

that the petitioner has raised the ground of alibi, in respect

of which, the proper investigation has to be done with regard

to the same. The grounds raised by the petitioner are factual

in nature and the 1^st respondent should be allowed to continue

the investigation with regard to the same and First

Information Reprot can not be quashed in the inception stage

itself.

4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials

available on record.

5. It is seen from the First Information Report that

there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which

has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia

and it need not contain all facts. Therefore, it cannot be

quashed on 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 investigate, grab and unearth

the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to

quash the FIR in Crime No. 104 of 2018. However, it is stated

that the petitioner is a Noon Meal Organizer and it is also

stated that during the relevant time of occurrence, she was

attending her work and that there are necessary documents to

support her claim.

7. In view of the above, the 1^st respondent is directed

to conduct investigation with regard to the presence of the

petitioner at the relevant place and to file the final

report, taking into consideration