Kavitha vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012559292026}
AND CRL MP NO. 20674 OF 2026
1. Kavitha
W/o Arun prakash,
No.201A, N.G.R.Street,
Jothipuram Post,
Coimbatore District.
2. Arun Prakash
S/o Late S.K.P.Pechiannan,
No.201 A, N.G.R.Street,
Jothipuram Post,
Coimbatore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.354 of 2026.
2. Rajamani
D/o Late Maruthachalam,
No.4D, Ramar Kovil Street,
Thirumalainaickenpalayam,
Jothipuram Post,
Coimbatore.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the entire records pertaining to Cr.No.354 of 2026 on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore
st
District, the 1 Respondent herein and quash the same.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Kannadasan,
for V.Kaaviya
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the
entire records pertaining to Crime No.354 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of
Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District, the first
respondent herein, and to quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the sons of the defacto complainant's
maternal uncle had fraudulently sold her maternal grandfather's ancestral
property, measuring 2.50 acres in S.No.58, Kuppepalayam Village, without the
knowledge of her mother and herself. In this regard, she had already instituted
O.S.No.176 of 2005 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, which
is pending. The defacto complainant was acquainted with the first petitioner,
who was running a documentation office at Periyanaickenpalayam. The first
and second petitioners are a document writer and an Advocate, respectively. On
08.04.2024, the defacto complainant, along with Mrs. Shenbagavalli, visited the
office of the first petitioner and informed him about the pendency of the civil
suit. The petitioners assured her that her name would be included in the patta
and that the suit would be decreed in her favour on the basis of the patta. They
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
further demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her. Accordingly, the defacto
complainant transferred a sum of Rs.95,000/- each on 09.04.2024 and
10.04.2024 through Google Pay from the bank account of one Saritha to the
account of the first petitioner. She also transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- on
17.04.2024 from the bank account of one Deepa, a relative of the defacto
complainant. The said amounts were allegedly paid towards expenses for
effecting changes in the revenue records and professional charges for including
her name in the patta. However, despite receiving the amounts, the petitioners
failed to effect the patta transfer as promised, thereby allegedly cheating the
defacto complainant. When questioned by the defacto complainant, the
petitioners neither took any steps in this regard nor returned the amount
received from her. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on
19.12.2025, based on which CSR No.834 of 2025 was assigned. Subsequently,
the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.354 of 2026 for the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is
an ambiguity with regard to the complaints dated 19.12.2025 and 07.06.2026,
which raises doubts regarding the registration of the FIR. Hence, he prays that
this Criminal Original Petition may be allowed.
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
5.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the defacto complainant lodged
a complaint before the first respondent police on 19.12.2025, for which CSR
No.834 of 2025 was assigned. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, the first
respondent registered the FIR. Hence, there is nothing improper in registering
the FIR based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.
6.It is further seen from the First Information Report that specific
allegations have been made against the petitioners, prima facie attracting the
offence alleged, which requires an in-depth investigation. Further, an FIR is not
an encyclopaedia and need not contain all the facts and details relating to the
alleged offence. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. This
Court finds that the FIR discloses the prima facie commission of a cognizable
offence and, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
investigation. The investigating agency has to step in, investigate and unearth
the alleged crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment reported in 2019
(14) SCC 350, in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of
Maharashtra and Others (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019) , held that
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
while taking cognizance and issuing summons, the learned Magistrate is
required to apply his judicial mind only for the purpose of ascertaining whether
a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused. The learned
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in
support of the complaint, as the Magistrate must not undertake an exercise to
ascertain whether such materials would ultimately lead to a conviction. Only
where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive can the complaint or FIR be considered for quashing. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, the same may be considered for
quashing. Therefore, a meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary at the
pre-trial stage to determine whether the proceedings would ultimately end in
conviction or acquittal. If, on a reading of the complaint and consideration of
the allegations therein, in the light of the statements made on oath, the
ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed, there would be no justification
for interference. 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
raised on behalf of the accused. Therefore, a criminal complaint cannot be
quashed merely on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be
civil in nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be
interdicted.
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
8.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others , issued the following directions:
“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
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
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 exercises its power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., it has only to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to
consider on merits whether the allegations ultimately
establish the commission of 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 that the alleged occurrence
relates to the year 2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the
investigation in Crime No.354 of 2026 and file a final report before the
jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, if not already filed.
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 31153 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 20674 OF 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:03 pm )