Benjis Kal vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 7951 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7951 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Benjis Kal vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 18.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7039 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 4842 and 4843 of 2022

1. Benjis Kal
2. Revathy ...Petitioners

Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
AWPS, Marthandam
Kanyakumari District

2. Mary Meena ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet dated 24.03.2020 in CC
No. 295 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari which was filed against the petitioners and quash
the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings

in CC No. 295 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused/A2 is the

mother -in-law of the defacto complainant. The first accused is the husband

of the defacto complainant and the son of the first petitioner /A2. The second

petitioner/A3 is the another daughter-in-law of the first petitioner/A2, i.e,. the

second petitioner/A3 is the brother's wife of the first accused. The accused 1

to 3 including the first and second petitioners got dowry from the defacto

complainant and harassed her demanding additional dowry. The first

accused is not maintaining the defacto complainant and her son and also the

first accused slapped on the cheek of the defacto complainant and chased her

away. The first accused and the second petitioner developed illegal intimacy

and also at the instance of the second petitioner, the first accused is doing all

this harassments to the defacto complainant, hence the 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.

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

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

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 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

"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 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 inCC No. 295 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial

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

Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari . 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