Madras High Court
T.Balasubramaniam vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.15069 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4277 & 8057 of 2021
1. T.Balasubramaniam
2. Kothainayaki ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 &2
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tallakulam,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.30 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. Amirthapriya ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.562 of 2021 on the file
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Advocate
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.R.Alagumani for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.562 of 2021, on the file Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent / Defacto
complainant had given a complaint against the petitioners before the first
respondent police alleging that she got married with one Balasubramanian / 1st
petitioner herein on 16.05.2019. At the time of marriage, as per the demand
made by the 1st petitioner and his family members, the parents of the defacto
complainant have given 30 Sovereigns of jewels, as dowry. Further they had
accepted the marriage expenses and spent the same to the tune of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). After the said marriage, the defacto
complainant as well as the 1st petitioner have started their matrimonial life
along with the 1st petitioner's family members at Chennai.
3. From the first day of the marriage, the defacto complainant had met
with so many physical and mental torture by the petitioners without any valid
reason. During their matrimonial life, the defacto complainant came to know
that one, Supraja, has developed relationship with her husband / 1 st petitioner.
On account of the said illegal relationship, the 1st petitioner always used
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
unwanted words of hatred as against the defacto complainant and picked up
quarrels with her. The 2nd petitioner had always probed the 1st petitioner's
action and induced the 1st petitioner to harass the defacto complainant on
numerous occasions. Further, with a malicious intention, the defacto
complainant has been wrongly connected with one unknown person by the
petitioners and tried to tarnish the chastity of the defacto complainant.
4. In view of intolerant of the above said harassments made by the
petitioners, the defacto complainant had committed two suicide attempts by
way of cutting nerves on her left hand with blade and by consuming poison. At
the instance, the defacto complainant rescued by the petitioners and she had
threatened that to give false statement before the police officials regarding her
suicidal attempts. On account of such threatening, the defacto complainant had
given false reasons to the police officials. Further, under this pandemic
situation of Covid-19, the dowry to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lakhs only) has been demanded. Regarding the said exorbitant demand, it was
questioned by the defacto complainant, for which, she was attacked by the
petitioners and the defacto complainant had sustained injury on her nose.
Hence, on the strength of intolerant of the said persecution, the defacto
complainant voluntarily left from her matrimonial home on 27.03.2020 and
stayed at her relation's home. Hence the defacto complainant lodged the
present complainant in Crime No.30 of 2020, as against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners are innocent and they had not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.30 of 2020 as against the petitioners and the same has been
taken cognizance in C.C.No.562 of 2021 on the file Judicial Magistrate
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai. Hence they prayed to quash the same.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in
this case.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. 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:-
" 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
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.
9. 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 during trial. The very fact
that the High Court, in this case, went into the most
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
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.”
10. 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 complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
..............
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.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.562 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the second accused
alone is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing
appropriate application. However, the second accused 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 six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
12. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tallakulam,
Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15069 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.15069 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4277 & 8057 of 2021
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
