Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
1.R.Kumaran
2.R.Veeramuthu
3.C.Ramanathan
4.Logambal @ Rajeswari
5.Raja @ Rajkumar
6.Vellaimmal
7.Bhuvaneswari ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The state rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Poonamalle,
Chennai-56.
2.Vardhini ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in respect of the Crime No.24
of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sadhananthan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in respect of the Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/victim girl aged about 15 years was compelled to get married with the 1st petitioner herein. Thereafter, on compulsion, the 1st petitioner, who is being the brother of the 2nd petitioner herein had penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl. Therefore, the 1st respondent police registered FIR in Crime No.24 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with Sections 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act,2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022
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. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with section 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act,2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 as against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 Sections 376(3), 498(A), 494, 506(1) of IPC along with Sections 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 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, there would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 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."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 quash the First Information Report in Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
13.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order nr To
1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Poonamalle, Chennai-56.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, nr Crl.O.P.No.21813 of 2022 13.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8