Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
P.Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Police Villianur Police Station – Respondent
Crl.M.P.No.11967 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s T.Sundaravadanam
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V. Ramachandra Murthy
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment analyzes Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 507 IPC for quashing an FIR. Facts of the Case: The FIR was registered following an alleged dispute over illegal sand mining, where the petitioner allegedly abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Findings of the Court: The Court held that the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence and cannot be quashed at the threshold.
Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when it discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; quashing an FIR should be an exception; when the investigation is in progress, the Court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR.
Result: The Court dismissed the petition with a direction to the police to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of offence alleged and criminal proceedings initiated. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of parties regarding quashing petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observation on prima facie case and investigation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court relied on supreme court judgments on quashing fir. (Para 8) |
| 5. court directed police to complete investigation and dismissed petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.260 of 2021 dated
16.07.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent police registered by the first respondent police for offences under Section 507 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant with regard to illegal sand mining. Hence, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and threatened with dire consequences on 13.07.2021. Hence, the case.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submit that the defacto complainant also attacked the petitioners and they were taken treatment for which a F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.213 of 2021. However, without conducting any enquiry, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 260 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 507 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that sofar 26 previous cases are pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act on 13.04.2026.
5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6.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.
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 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 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 made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegati
