##PAGE1##

Crl.O.P.No.10707 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.10707 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.6788 of 2023

1.Mathiazhagan

2.Ramachandran ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State rep. By The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District

crime No.3 of 2023

2.Ambiga ... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the

same.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,

Government Advocate(crl.side)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the first Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:34:41 pm )

Crl.O.P.No.10707 of 2023 respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the subject property was

sold out by the first accused in favour of the second accused without any title over the property. On complaint, the first respondent has registered FIR in crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections

465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as

against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for

the first respondent police would submit that the investigation is almost

completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are

specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, which

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:34:41 pm )

Crl.O.P.No.10707 of 2023 have 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.

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

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 03:34:41 pm )

Crl.O.P.No.10707 of 2023 the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement m