top of page

Court is not inclined to quash FIR if there is a prima facie case: Madras HC

S.Ramesh v. The Inspector of Police and Ors.

Crl.O.P(MD) No.18997 of 2016 and Crl.M.P (MD) No.9503 of 2016.

October 07, 2020.

Coram: Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

For Petitioner: M/S.K.Vidya.

For Respondents For R1: Mr.K.R.Bharathikannan, Government Advocate.

Hon’ble Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court held in a case that when the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence, the Court cannot interfere with the investigation.

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.299 of 2016 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 406, 420, 462, 465, 468, 471 and 477(A) of IPC, as against the petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.299 of 2016 against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.

The Hon’ble Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors and reproduced the relevant part of the judgment in the following words:

"Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. 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 for the High Court to interfere.( Para 5 in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors)"

On the above regard the court held,

It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences, 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. (Para 5)

Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed and the Court directed the first respondent to complete the investigation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Kalidharun K M.

View/Download Judgment:

.Ramesh v Inspector of police



bottom of page