Madras High Court
Mohamed Subaidhu vs State Rep.By on 18 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2552 of 2019
Mohamed Subaidhu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep.by
Inspector of Police
Ooty Town Central
Nilgiris District.
(Crime No.159 of 2017)
2.Mohamed Hilar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records leading to the impugned charge sheet
filed in S.C.No.52 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Nilgris and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tamilvanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
ORDER
This petition had been filed to call for the records relating to
the impugned charge sheet filed in S.C.No.52 of 2018 on the file Sessions
Judge Mahila Court Fast Track, Nilgris and quash the same.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
petitioner and the deceased had allegedly consumed poison in a lodge at
Ooty. On the complaint of the husband of the deceased, an FIR came to be
registered, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers. The relevant portion
of the said FIR reads thus:-
“vdJ mz;zd; KfkJ RigJ vd;gtUf;Fk; fle;j 8
khj';fshf gHf;fk; ,Ue;J te;Js;sJ/ ehDk; vdJ mz;zDk; jdp
jdp tPl;oy; FLk;gk; elj;jp te;njhk;//////ngRk; nghJ ehd; tpcw;k;
rhg;gpl;Ltpl;nld;/ vd;id kd;dpj;J tpL';fs; ehd; c';fSf;Fk; ekJ
gps;isfSf;Fk; Jnuhfk; bra;Jtpl;nld;/ ehd; ,we;J gpwF vd;
gpzj;ij CUf;F vLj;Jl;Lnlh';f vd;W mGjhh; gpwF eh';fs; Cl;o
fhty; epiyaj;ij bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L ele;jij Twpndhk;/ Cl;o gp1
fhty; epiya nghyPrhh; cjtpapld; yhl;$py; ,Ue;jth;fs; rpfpr;irfhf
,Utiua[k; cjif muR kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpj;Js;sdh;/ gpwF nky;
rpfpri
; rf;fhf nfhit muR kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpri
; rf;fhf nrh;ff; g;gl;l
vdJ kidtp rpfpri
; r gyd; ,d;W ,d;W 19/02/2017k; njjp mjpfhiy
04/45 kzpf;F ,we;Jtpl;ljhf kUj;Jth; bjhptpjj; hh;/ gpwF ehDk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
vdJ ka;Jdh; jkpKy; md;rhhp nfhitapypUe;J cjif te;J ,ut[
08/00 kzpf;F gp1 fhty; epiyak; te;J g[fhh; bfhLf;fpnwhk;/ vdf;Fk;
vdJ gps;isfSf;Fk; njhufk; bra;jij epidj;J vdJ kidtp
kdtUj;jj;jpy; tpcw;k; mUe;jp jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhz;lhh;/ vdJ
kidtpapd; ,wg;g[ Fwpj;J eltof;if vLj;J gpnujj;ij xg;gilf;FkhW
nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/”
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that after consuming poison, the deceased had contacted her husband and
informed him that she consumed poison as she had cheated her husband and
the children. On coming to know that his wife consumed poison, the
Defacto complainant rushed to Ooty, whereupon, the First Information
Report was registered before the first respondent Police. Based on the
information provided by the deceased only, the husband of the deceased
proceeded to Ooty. The Police had reached the lodge and took the deceased
as well as the Petitioner herein, who had also consumed the same poison,
and took them to Hospital. In the Hospital, the deceased succumbed to the
poison. Due to the treatment given by the Doctors, the Petitioner recovered.
After the investigation, the Police had laid the final report against the
Petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
the charge sheet.
4. Further, he invited the attention of this Court to statements of
witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. statement of the husband of the deceased, who is none other than
the brother of the Petitioner herein. He had improved the earlier version of
the complaint and made the said statement. Further, the learned counsel for
the Petitioner invited attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the
said statement, which reads thus:
“ehd; ML tpahghuk; tprakhf fhiyapy; btspapy;
brd;why; ,ut[ jhd; tPl;ow;F tUntd;/ ehd; tPl;oy; ,y;yhj rkak;
mth;fs; ,UtUf;Fk; beUf;fk; mjpfkhfpa[s;sJ/ ,jdhy; ,UtUk;
03/02/2017k; njjp gps;isfs; gs;spf;Fk; ehd; tpahghu tprakhf
btspna brd;w rkaj;jpy; ,UtUk; tPl;il tpl;L fhzhky;
ngha;tpl;ldh;/ mth;fs; ,Utiua[k; gy ,l';fspy; njo ghh;j;njhk;/
tPl;il tpl;L brd;w gpwF mt;tg;nghJ v';fs; tPl;ow;F vdJ
mz;zDk; vdJ kidtpa[k; nghd; bra;J eh';fs; ,UtUk;
rPff; puk; te;J tpLnthk; v';fis njlhjPhf; s; vd;W jfty;
brhd;dhh;fs; mij ek;gp eh';fs; vd; mz;zida[k; vd;
kidtpiaa[k; v';Fk; njltpy;iy/ 17/02/2017 k; njjp khiy Rkhh; 5
kzpfF
; Cl;o bkapd; g$hhpy; cs;s uhay; nguil!; yhl;$py;
,UtUk; tprk; rhg;gpl;ljhf vdJ kidtpa[k; vdJ mz;zDk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
nghd; K:yk; jfty; brhd;dhh;fs;/ ehd; vd; mz;zdplk; vd;
kiddtpia nghdpy; ngr brhd;ndd;/ vd;dplk; vdJ kidtp
ngRk; nghJ mth;fs; ,UtUk; CUf;F jpUk;gp brd;why; mth;fs;
,Utiua[k; xd;whf thHtplkhl;lhh;fs;/”
5. Thereupon, he had improved further from the FIR. This is a
different version from the second Respondent/Defacto complainant.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the charge
sheet.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently
objects to quash the charge sheet stating that the submissions of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner will be considered only during the trial and not at
the stage of exercising discretionary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the
Petitioner had eloped with the wife of the Defacto complainant, who is none
other than the younger brother of the Petitioner. If he had not eloped with
the Defacto complainant's wife, she might not have ended her life.
Therefore, the Investigation Officer had rightly laid the final report of
Investigation against the Accused and he has to stand the trial. Hence, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
Court cannot quash the charge sheet on the basis of the submission of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that he also consumed poison, but due to
the treatment given to him, he recovered. Therefore, there is not fault on
him. That line of the arguments cannot be accepted to quash the charge
sheet.
7. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) invited
attention of this Court to the guidelines issued to the High Courts by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported ruling in State of Haryana and Ors.
Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992
SCC (Cri) 426, wherein the guidelines were issued to the High Court not to
exercise discretion under the extraordinary power of the High Court
leniently while quashing either the charge sheet or the First Information
Report under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. The said judgment would squarely
apply to the case on hand. Only when the High Court comes to the
conclusion that prima facie case is not made out, the quash petition may be
entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
8. On consideration of the rival submissions, the submission of
the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused cannot be accepted in the
light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors. From the available
materials, it is found that as rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side), the Petitioner herein had eloped with the wife of his
younger brother to Ooty and there they had consumed poison. Only after the
wife of the Defacto complainant informed the Defacto complainant about
the act done by her, he had rushed to Ooty and lodged a complaint and
rescued her along with the Petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that due to the treatment given by the Doctor, the
Petitioner recovered, however the wife of the Defacto complainant lost her
life. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
the whole episode had taken place only at the instance of the Petitioner.
Therefore, the Petitioner has to stand the trial.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side), in the light of the reported ruling of State of Haryana and Ors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, this is not a fit case for exercising
discretionary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this petition the same is dismissed. The learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nilgris, is directed to dispose of
the case within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order or from the date of uploading this order on the
website of this Court.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
To
1.The Sessions Judge Mahila Court Fast Track, Nilgris.
2.The Inspector of Police
Ooty Town Central
Nilgiris District.
(Crime No.159 of 2017)
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna
Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2552 of 2019
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
