Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl. OP .No. 18762 of 20 26 and Crl.MP.No.12500 of 2026 A.Rajuram ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Virunchipuram Police Station, Vellore 632 001 2.Selvakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for entire records in connection with the case in FIR in Crime No.105 of 2026 on the file of the First Respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Deepika For Respondents For R1 : Mr.M.Dinesh, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.P.Ganesan ORDER This criminal original petition has been filed praying to call for entire records in connection with the case in FIR in Crime No.105 of 2026 on the file of the First Respondent and to quash the same. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Defacto Complainant, a resident of Kancheepuram, came to Vellore with few friends in order to sell his gold jewellery for purchase of a property and he had allegedly handed over 190 gms of gold Jewels to Al to encash the same. The Defacto Complainant was introduced to one Nancy, through his Friend Baskar, and his wife Kalpana. Nancy was introduced as Kalpana's friend, who represented that she knew one, Poigai Babu and his friend Vijay, ( A2 and Al respectively) who could sell the jewels without any wastage at Vellore. Believing her representations and assurances, on 14.05.2026, the Defacto Complainant accompanied with his friend’s wife Kalpana, and her friend Nancy along with one Prakash, Driver in a Car to Vellore, they have reached Vijay's ( Al) home, where Poigai Babu, A2 was also present. It is allegedly stated that the Defacto Complainant has handed over 10 ½ Sovereigns of Gold jewelerry to Vijay and Babu. It is further alleged that Kalpana gave 13 Sovereigns of Gold and Nancy gave three sovereigns of gold. Receiving the gold jewels, Vijay and Babu (Al and A2) left the place with an assurance to bring money without any wastage and did not return till midnight 12 pm. and their mobile numbers were also switched off. Thereafter the above FIR came to be registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 petitioner is arrayed as A3 and he is the owner of the pawn broker running in the name and style of ‘Bhavani Pawn Broker’. He did not have any knowledge that the jewels pledged by A1 and A2 are stolen one. 4. However, it is only FIR and as such, the first respondent has to investigate in depth whether the petitioner had knowledge or not about the jewels pledged by A1 and A2. 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. 5. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 6. 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 considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; ............. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 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; .......” 7. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.105 of 2026 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. It is made clear that the first respondent shall conduct enquiry with regard to the petitioner’s role in this FIR and accordingly file final report. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.08.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Virunchipuram Police Station, Vellore 632 001 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. lok Crl.OP.No.18762 of 2026 20.08.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis