CRL OP/21620/2023 of SHYAMALA Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP Nos. 21620 and 22241 of 2023
AND
CRL MP Nos. 21716, 15462 and 15379 of 2023
1. Shyamala
W/o Thangaraj,
2. Kannan
S/o Thangaraj,
3. Hari
S/o Thangaraj,
All Are Residing At
Plot No.24, Royal Olive
Apartments, D.No.1a, 1st Floor,
Mgr Street, Santhosapuram,
Chennai 600073
..Petitioner in Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023
1. Mr.R. Dhakshina Moorthy
..Petitioner in Cr.O.P.No. 22241 of 2023
Vs
1. Inspector Of Police
Koothanallur Police Station,
Thiruvarur District
2. R.Dakshinamoorthy S/o
Rajamanickam, No.16, Voc
Street, Thiruvarur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page2 of 10
..Respondent in Cr.O.P.No. 20621
of 2023
1. State Represented by the Inspector Of Police
Koothanallur Police Station, Thiruvarur District
2. Mr.T.Kannan
..Respondents in Cr.O.P.No. 20621 of 2023
Prayer in Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023: This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C to Call for the records in Crime No.286/2023 on the file of the
respondent police and Quash the Same as against the petitioner and thus r ender
justice.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.22241 of 2023: This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C to Call for the records in Crime No.469/2021 pending on the fil e of the
first respondent police, Inspector of Police, Koothanallur Police Station,
Thiruvarur and Quash the Same as against the petitioner and thus render justice.
( In Crl.O.P.No.21620 of 2023)
For Petitioner(s): M/s S.Jim Raj Milton
S.Parthasarathi
R.Rajavigneshwari
Addl Typed Set Filed
For Respondent -1
For Respondent-2:
: Mr.A. Gopinath, Government Advocate
M/s.D.Prabu
V.Johnson Yuvaraj-ms/314/2010
M.Muthuraj-ms/401/2010
M.Suresh-ms/372/2010 Counsel For Respondent
( In Crl.O.P.No.21620 of 2023)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page3 of 10
ORDER
Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023 has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime
No.286 of 2023 registered by the first respondent police for offences under
Sections 420,421, 465 and 500 of of IPC, as against the petitioner.
Crl.O.P.No.22241 of 2023 is filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime
No.469/2021 pending on the file of the first respondent police, Inspector of
Police, Koothanallur Police Station, Thiruvarur and Quash the Same a s against
the petitioner
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case is as follows:
2.1. The facts of the case is that that all the petitioners in Cr.O.P.No.
21620 of 2023 belong to a same family and the first petitioner is taki ng care of
the subject property. Since the first petitioner shifted to Chennai he appointed
on Rajendran to take care of the property. While being so the said Rajendran
obtained the signature of the first petitioner in blank papers stati ng that it was
necessary for him to deal with the revenue authorities and to obtain free
electricity and agricultural subsidies. When this being the case, the Rajendran
took the said empty blank papers and created bogus documents as if the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page4 of 10
petitioner in Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023 had borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.
Thereafter, the said Rajendran colluded with one Dhakshinamoorthy/ peti tioner
in Crl.O.P.No. 22241 of 2023 and created a forged sale agreement.
2.2. It is also seen from records that several petitions have been f iled by
the petitioners in Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023 to prove the fraud committe d by
the said Rajendran and also preferred a complaint before the Super intendent of
police, Thiruvarur and the same did not evoke any action. Finally a com plaint
was filed by the second respondent Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023 and the
respondent also registered the same in Cr.No.469 of 2021 against the said
Dhakshnima Moorthy and Rajendran.
2.3. The case of the petitioner in Cr.l.O.P.No.2241 of 2023 is that the first
petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21620 of 2023 by name Shyamala has entered into the
Sale agreement dated 19.07.20233 with one Rajendran and subsequently the
parties to the sale agreement was not in a position to proceed further and as such
the petitioner entered into a sale agreement dated 06.12.2004 with the said
Shyamala and has also settled the advance amount of Rs.10,00,0000 to
Mr.Rajendran and Mrs. Shyamala has admittedly handed over the possession of
the property on the date of Sale Agreement and since then the petit ioner is in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page5 of 10
filed a complaint against the petitioners in Cr.O.P.No. 21620 of 2023 in
Cr.No.286 of 2023.
3. To quash both the F.I.R’s in Cr.No.469 of 2021 and Cr.No.286 of
2023 the present petitions have been filed .
4. After filing of this petition the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21620/2023 has
filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.21 of 2012 on the fil e of the
Principal District Court, Tiruvarur. While pending suit an applicati on was filed
to send the documents for seeking handwriting expert opinion in
I.A.No.15/2025 in O.S.No. 21 of 2012 and the same was allowed on 29.01.2026
and all the documents was sent to the Foresnic lab to obtain exper t opinion and
a report was obtained that the signatures in the documents are forge d ones.
Therefore, the second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.21620 of 2023/
Dakshinamoorthy has made out a prima facie case to register the F.I.R in Cr.
No.469 of 2021 which was filed against him. Therefore both the F.I.R’s c annot
be quashed at the threshold.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page6 of 10
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are spe cific
allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, w hich 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 its threshold. This Cour t finds that
the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this
Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machi nery has
to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accor dance 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 t he merits of
the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magi strate
must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials woul d lead to
conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose a ny
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken
for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the compl aint do
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page7 of 10
not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistra te, 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 appear s 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 disc losed, 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 i nto 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 offence alleged
against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the
judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page8 of 10
..............
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offe nce
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete t he
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer fi nds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year
2021 and 2023 the respondent/police is directed to complete the investigat ion in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page9 of 10
both the Crime Nos. 286 of 2023 and 469 of 2021 and file a final report within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before
the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
10. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SMN
To.
1. The Inspector Of Police
Koothanallur Police Station, Thiruvarur District
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21620 of 2023
__________
Page10 of 10
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
SMN
CRL OP Nos. 21620 and 22241 of 2023
AND
CRL MP Nos. 21716, 15462 and 15379 of 2023
16-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis