Hemachandran S.R vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026 and
Crl.M.P.No.20491 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012402902026}
Hemachandran S.R
S/o Rajavelu,
Residing at
No.72A/C,
Kamatchiamman Koil Sannathi Street,
Kanchipuram.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State rep by the Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch,
Kanchipuram.
Crime no.9 of 2026.
2. V.Ravikumar
S/o Vadivel,
Residing at No.45, Perumal Koil Street,
Karur,
Kanchipuram Taluk.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for entire records in
connection with the Crime no.9 of 2026 on the file of the District Crime Branch,
Kanchipuram and Quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Sairam
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Additional Public
Prosecutor for R1
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.9 of 2026
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 336(2),
336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS Act , as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had given loan to
the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and in turn the defacto
complainant has given property documents for security purpose and executed a
power of attorney in favour of the driver of the petitioner. It is alleged that when
the defacto complainant tried to pay the borrowed money with interest, the
petitioner was refusing to revive the same. It is alleged that the petitioner has
misused the power of attorney and created encumbrance in the subject property.
Hence, the second respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner
before the first respondent. To quash the same the petitioner has filed this
present petition.
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. 9 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 336(2),
336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS Act, as against the petitioner.
Hence he prayed to quash the same.
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 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 in it’s 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
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
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 not 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 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
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
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;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
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 the
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 finds 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
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
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 in Crime No. 9 of 2026 on the file of the first
respondent. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SMN
To.
1. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch,Kanchipuram.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
SMN
CRL OP No. 31053 of 2026 and
Crl.M.P.No.20491 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:38 pm )