Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.3416 of 2022
1. R.Vinothkumar
2. S.Rajakumaran
3. R.Saraswathi
4. R.Manojkumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by:
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Devala, The Nilgiris District,
Pincode-643211.
2. Jaraniyaa GR
(R2 impleaded as per order
dated 11.08.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.12529 of 2022
in Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the FIR registered in the F.I.R.No.01 of 2022 in the file of
Respondent Police against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kathiravan
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.J.Franklin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Section 498(A) of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally 4 accused and the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The petitioners harassed the defacto complainant and compelled her to bring money from the father of the defacto complainant and demanded dowry. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no specific date of occurrence alleged to have committed by the petitioners. This is the second complaint filed by the second respondent. That apart, the first petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it is pending. In fact, this matter was referred before Mediation and the second respondent is not willing to settle the issue. He also pointed out that the District Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry and found that there was no dowry harassment by the petitioners. Therefore, there was no harassment due to dowry and the offence under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022 Section 498A of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners. Insofar as the fourth petitioner is concerned, he is none other than the brother of the first accused and he is no way connected with the alleged crime since he is residing separately. Unnecessarily he has been implicated in this case and facing harassment with the hands of the second respondent. Therefore, without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2022 for the offences under Section 498A of IPC, as against the petitioners. 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 Mr.S.Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
6. It is seen that even though there is no allegations to attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC, there are specific allegations that the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant. Though the date of occurrence is not mentioned specifically by the second respondent, the offence under Section 498A of IPC is continuous one and as such there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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 its 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. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022 which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022 there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.
......................
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints 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 Page 6 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent Police. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mn/gd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn To
1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devala, The Nilgiris District, Pincode-643211.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3416 of 2022 12.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8