Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
K. Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Police Central Brime Branch Bank Fraud Wing Tambaram City Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition in Crime No.114/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Senthil Manohar
For the Respondents: A. Gopinath (R1), V. Sivalingam (R2)
The High Court should not quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, as the investigation process should not be prematurely stifled before the police collect evidence.
Headnote:The proceedings concern a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 506(ii), and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The facts involve a dispute arising from a property auction where the petitioners, engaged in real estate, faced allegations regarding suppressed information about the property's survey numbers and encumbrances. The Court determined that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of cognizable offences necessitating further investigation. The core issue was whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold due to the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and detailed factual investigation is required. Relying on settled precedents, the Court reasoned that the criminal process should not be stifled when ingredients of the alleged offences appear to be present in the complaint, and it is not the Court's role to evaluate the evidentiary merits at the inception of the investigation. The Court dismissed the petition and directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition, the underlying dispute regarding real estate transactions, and initial contentions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. determination that an fir containing specific allegations of cognizable offenses should not be prematurely quashed. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. application of legal precedents confirming that investigation by police is standard procedure and should remain unhindered. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.114 of 2023 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections
406,420,465,506(ii),120B IPC as against the petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has purchased a property in SARFAESI auction conducted by the City union Bank Thiruvancherry Branch at Selaiyur, Chennai on 25.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.20,15,000/-. The property was mortgaged with the City Union Bank by the first accused and on default of payment, the property was auctioned by the City Union Bank at Seliyur Chennai and the sale certificate has been registered as Document No.4405 of 2022. The property was situated at Puthur Village of Chengalpet Taluk admeasuring to an extent of 880 square feet in Survey No.25/1A and it was Plot-5 in the layout approved by CMDA and promoted by the petitioner who are doing real estate business in the name and style Right Choice-SP promoter. It is further submitted that the survey Number 26/1 was missing in the document. Hence the second respondent registered a FIR against the petitioner stating that there was an encumbrance in the subject property.
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. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 114 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 406,420,465,506(ii),120B of IPC as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6. On a perusal of records and on the submissions made by either side it is seen that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to register the F.I.R.
7. 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 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 c
