The High Court will not quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, as the investigation process should not be stifled at the threshold without allowing the investigative agency to perform its duties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN S.Selvaraj Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Kaniyur Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2.T.Gowthami Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 97 of 2023 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and abuse of process by allowing the present criminal original petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.PR Kalai Ezhil Vanan, No appearance For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

for R1 Mr.K.Naveen Kumar for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 97 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and abuse of process by allowing the present criminal original petition.

2. On the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.97 of 2023 for an offence under Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for not complying with the order passed in D.V.A.No.8 of 2020, dated 26.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.182 of 2022 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) towards monthly maintenance and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only).

3. Heard the learned Government Advocate for first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

4. 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.

5. 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 issu