Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.5027 of 2023 Deepak Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H-5 WASHERMENPET POLICE STATION, NEW WASHERMENPET, CHENNAI (CR.NO.38 of 2023) 2.K.JAGADEESWARI ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.38 of 2023 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai District. For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side) For R2 : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.38 of 2023 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, Washermenpet, Chennai District. 2. The case of the prosecution is that complaint was given by the 2nd Respondent/de-facto complainant alleging that the De-facto Complainant is the owner of a gold shop in the name and style of 'Deepak Jewelers’ Thiruvottiyur Highway, Chennai. The de-facto complainant had 4 gram 22 karat gold dollar worth of Rs.17,299/- and she wanted to exchange the said gold dollar in order to purchase brand new 4 gram 22 karat gold bracelet by paying additional sum of Rs.2,000/-. She also purchased a pair of gold earring weighing 1 gram of 22 karat for a sum of Rs.4800/- from the petitioner’s shop. The de-facto complainant was using the gold earrings and on 18/12/2022 since her earrings got damaged, she had gone to a pawn shop at Thiruvottiyur, Raja Salai where she regularly used go to sell damaged gold earrings. On arrival at the pawn shop, she had given the damaged gold earrings which she purchased from the petitioner’s shop for appraisal by the pawn broker. At that time, the pawn broker, after appraisal of the damaged earring, said that the gold earrings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 are impure and of poor quality. Immediately, the de-facto complainant had called her husband over the phone and informed him of the pawn broker's appraisal. The de-facto complainant, who had purchased the other 4 gram 22 karat gold bracelet, doubted its purity and wanted to check the quality of the same. Hence the de-facto complainant’s husband on 19/12/2022 had taken both earrings and bracelet to a private gold smith 'Ganesh Gold Welding'. At that time, it was informed that the bracelet was only 75.01% pure and the earrings were only 75.10%. Therefore, the petitioner had de-frauded the de-facto complainant by selling impure and low standard gold ornaments saying as 22 karat standard gold. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the 1st Respondent police, on 26/01/2023, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2023 against the petitioner for the offences U/s 406 and 420 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the second respondent and even as per the allegation, no offence is made out against the petitioner. There was inordinate delay in registering the FIR. The complaint was lodged on 19.12.2022, whereas FIR was registered on 26.01.2023. Further, there is absolutely no proof to show that the gold articles were purchased from the petitioner’s shop and the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 respondent did not even produce any receipt to show that the said jewelleries were purchased from the petitioner’s shop. Hence he prayed to quash the impugned FIR. 4. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation in respect of the impugned FIR is yet to be completed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this criminal original petition. 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. Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 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 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 FIR is of the year 2023, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.38 of 2023 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.03.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 To STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H-5 WASHERMENPET POLICE STATION, NEW WASHERMENPET, CHENNAI https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. lok Crl.O.P.No.7902 of 2023 18.03.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis