The High Court will not quash an FIR under S. 482 CrPC if the allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence, as the investigation process should not be prematurely stifled based on the merits of the complaint.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.86 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gold ornaments, had business transactions with the petitioners, who were also carrying on similar business. According to the prosecution, during the period between 2018 and 2019, the petitioners received gold ornaments weighing about 4 kgs from the defacto complainant for sale to customers, but failed to pay the entire sale consideration within the agreed credit period. Though the petitioners paid the amount relating to 2 kgs of gold ornaments, they failed to repay the remaining of 2 kgs of gold ornaments. It is further alleged that, when it was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences.

Hence, the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.86 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC, 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.

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 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 allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the o