CRL.O.P.No.22054 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.22054 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P.No.14215 of 2022
1.Sathishkumar
2.Nagaraj
3.Prabhu
4.Sathurappan
5.Sangareswari
6.Bangajavalli ... Petitioners/A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 & A6
Vs.
1.State rep. by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam,
Salem City.
2.K.Subalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings pending on the file
of the 1st respondent herein for the alleged offences u/s. 498(A), 294(b), 506(1)
& Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in CC No.561 of 2022 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr. S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R1
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C. No.561 of 2022 pending on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Salem for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) & 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1/1st petitioner got married with the victim on 10.03.2019. The victim has got some skin disease and the same was informed to the accused person. However, without bothering about the same, they readily and willingly married the victim girl. At the time of marriage, there was huge demands and the same was complied with. After marriage, all the accused persons threatened her with dire consequences and also harassed to bring more dowry. A2/2nd petitioner also sexually assaulted the victim. Whenever it was informed to the A1 and other accused persons, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 they directed the victim girl to adjust with the A2, so that she can live with the A1. Due to skin disease, they used to scold her with filthy language and also demanded huge dowry.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that except the husband/1st petitioner, as against the other petitioners, there are no specific allegations and all of them are bald and big. They are also living separately and they are no way connected with the A1 and the victim.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard Mr. Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent.
6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 " 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 “19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. ..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................." The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022
9. It is seen from the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the victim, there are specific allegations to attract the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) & 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as against all the accused person. The grounds raised by the petitioners are nothing but mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in the quash petition.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.561 of 2022 in Crime No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Except 1st and 2nd petitioner, the personal appearance of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022
11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are also closed.
14.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mpl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9 CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mpl To
1.TheInspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam, Salem City.
2.The Additional Mahila Court, Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.22054 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No.14215 of 2022 14.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9