Sathiamoorthi .K vs State represented by Inspector of Police

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012174592026}
Sathiamoorthi.K
S/o Krishnan,
No.8/207, Samanaikanpalayam,
No.4, Veerapandi,
Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State represented by
Inspector of Police
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
Crime No.163/2017
2. Branch Manager
Indus Ind Bank,
11132-11136,
Mettupalayam Road,
Natraj Metcare Complex,
Vadacovai, Coimbatore.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying
to call for the records in Crime No.163 of 2017 on the file of 1st respondent
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore and to quash the entire
proceedings against the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Arshad Khan
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor For R1
Mr.RA.Gopinath for R2
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R.
in Crime No.163 of 2017 registered by the first respondent police for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, as against the
petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, namely Sasikumar,
had availed a loan of Rs.8,40,000/- from the second respondent/de-facto
complainant bank for the purchase of a Tempo Traveller, repayable in 48
monthly instalments. It is alleged that first accused paid only six EMIs and
thereafter defaulted in repayment of the loan. It is further alleged that the first
accused, in collusion with one S.R.Rajesh and Banumathi, namely, Accused
Nos.3 and 4 had created certain forged documents and that the said Tempo
Traveller is presently in the possession of the said Accused Nos.3 and 4. On the
complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police
registered an FIR in Crime No.163 of 2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, in which the petitioner was arrayed as
Accused No.2. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the
present petition.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
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 second respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 420,
467 and 471 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
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 all the accused persons to attract the alleged 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.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
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 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
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
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;
..............
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
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
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 2017,
the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.163 of
2017 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already
filed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
Crime No.163/2017
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Uma
CRL OP No. 26169 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )