Janef Kani vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 7087 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7087 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Janef Kani vs State Represented By on 5 April, 2022

                                                              1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 05.04.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6243 of 2022
                                                            and
                                               Crl.M.P(MD) No.4315 of 2022

                     1.Janef Kani
                     2.Jasmine Salika                                                ...Petitioners


                                                                  Vs.

                     1. State represented by
                        All Women Police Station,
                        Thallakulam,
                        Madurai City,
                        Madurai District.
                        (Crime No.14/2019)

                     2. Arapeth Mesha                                               ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.574 of 2020 on the file of
                     Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai (JM Level) and Quash the
                     same in so for the petitioner's concern.


                                    For Petitioners      : Mr.I.Saliyakhan

                                    For Respondent      : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                    No.1                   Additional Public Prosecutor




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                 2

                                                             ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.574 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila

Court, Madurai (JM Level)

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant married

the first accused as per muslim customs on 24.01.2016. At the time of

marriage the parents of the defacto complainant offered 200 sovereigns of

gold jewels, household articles worth about Rs.4 lakhs . After marriage within

a week the defacto complainant went to Dubai with A1 to A3. After two days

in Dubai, they forced the defacto complainant to work in private concern, but

she refused to do so. The first accused joined with the other accused and

told to the defacto complainant that they have married her only for loan

purpose and started harassing the defacto complainant. Thereafter the

defacto complainant returned from Dubai and living with her parents and the

first accused along with others accused also returned from Dubai and told

that they came from Dubai for medical treatment for first accused.Thereafter

the accused persons has purchased a own house and when the parents of

the defacto complainant went to the accused house and asked A3 to live

together with the first accused he did not allow her. On 06.11.2016 the

defacto complainant gave birth to a male child but the accused persons did

not see the child also. When the defacto complainant went to the accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

house, A2 and A3 demanded demanded another Rs.20 lakhs for medical

expenses and the same was also paid by the parents of the defacto

complainant and thereafter the defacto complainant was allowed to live with

A1. Thereafter the accused persons has beaten the defacto complainant and

started harassing her. Hence the present case came to be registered.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence

as alleged by the prosecution.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in

this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

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., wherein it is

held as follows:-

" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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:

“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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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:

"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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.574 of 2020 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai (JM Level). The petitioners are at

liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal

appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be

represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the

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