Courts cannot quash FIR at the threshold if prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed even if the dispute has civil overtones.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in crime No.13 of 2023 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore City.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons during the year 2019 had approached the de-facto complainant and represented that they are doing multiple business and one such is finance business and told the de-facto complainant to invest in the finance company and assured to repay with 60% interest. Believing the words of the accused, the de-facto complainant invested Rs.50,00,000/- on 17.12.2019 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 16.03.2020 and the accused persons have been paying interest since 04.01.2020. Subsequently the de-facto complainant's mother Mrs. Prema since December 2019 to June 2020 had given a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on various occasions and the accused persons paid interest since February 2020 and subsequently the de-facto complainant on the capacity of being the Joint Managing Director of M/s. Dhandayuthapani Foundry Private Limited has deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- on 23.01.2020, Rs. 1,75,00,000/-on 18.02.2020 and Rs.2,00,00,000/- on 11.05.2020 totaling to a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner and the accused persons paid interest till April 2021. Since then, they neither paid the interest nor repaid the deposit money. Therefore, the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint dated 22.10.2022 and the respondent police registered case in Cr. No.13 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Section 120B, 406 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, against which this criminal original petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is only money transaction between the complainant and the accused and instead of instituting civil suit for recovery of money, this complaint has been filed. Therefore, no offence is made out under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of IPC. In fact, after depositing the said money, portion of interest was received and the specific case is that the accused failed to pay interest for the money deposited. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the impugned proceedings.

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

5. On perusal of the records and also on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is revealed that the accused made the complainant to deposit huge amount by giving assurance that 60% of the amount will be paid as interest to the complainant. Therefore, prima facie case is made out to register FIR for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of IPC.

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 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