Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.17057 of 2022
1. Thilagavathi
2. Sukumar Kannan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
49/1, Anna Salai, West Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015
2. Sarala Jaganathan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records pertaining to FIR No.92
of 2022 dated 02.04.2022 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police against the petitioners and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Siva Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.T.Arockia Das for R2
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.92 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/second respondent is that she is the wife of one Vetrivel Thiagarajan, who is the brother of the first petitioner and the brother-in- law of the second petitioner. The defacto complainant got married with Vetrivel in the year 2008, after which both of them lived as husband and wife in North Carolina, United States of America from 01.11.2009 and they are the permanent citizens of United States of America. Later, due to difference of opinion, both of them living separately from January 2021 and her husband filed a petition for Absolute Divorce before the Courts of North Carolina. The further case is that on 17.03.2022 at around 10.30am., when she had gone to her matrimonial house, the first petitioner intruded her husband and dictated him to throw her outside and 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 started to videographing the same along with the second petitioner. They have also abused her using filthy languages and grabbed her forearm causing injury and one Ashok Kumar wcalled by the petitioners and they pushed her to the floor and her hand bag was stolen by the petitioners, which was returned only after her threat to file a police complaint. Hence, the complaint is registered against the petitioners.
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.92 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that on 17.03.2022 at around 10.30am., when she had gone to her matrimonial house, the first petitioner intruded her husband and dictated 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 him to throw her outside and started to videographing the same along with the second petitioner. They have also abused her using filthy languages and grabbed her forearm causing injury and one Ashok Kumar wcalled by the petitioners and they pushed her to the floor and her hand bag was stolen by the petitioners, which was returned only after her threat to file a police complaint.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report.
6. Heard Mr.L.Siva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.Arockia Das, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, which 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 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.
8. 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 a view to taking cognizance of the offence, 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 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 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, 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 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.92 of 2022 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
14.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Vv To
1. The The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, 49/1, Anna Salai, West Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.17057 of 2022 14.09.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis