Madras High Court
Shankar Sabari vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD) No.4952 of 2020
1.Shankar Sabari
2.Vellaikkannu
3.Vimaladevi
4.Kayalvizhi
5.Veeramalai
6.Jothimani ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dindigul.
(Cr.No.8 of 2016)
2.Gunasundari ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Sectin 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying this Court to call for entire records in C.C.No.509 of 2016 pending
on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Antony Santhosh
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge
sheet in C.C.No.509 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila
Court, Dindigul.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the
de facto complainant got married on 14.07.2013. At the time of marriage,
the de facto complainant has given 10 sovereigns of gold and household
articles to the first petitioner as a dowry. On the instigation of the
petitioners 2 to 6, the first petitioner demanded dowry and harass the
de facto complainant and abused her in filthy language and gave life threat
to the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
this case. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in
Crime No.8 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and
506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and
Section 4 of Domestic Violence Act, as against the petitioners and the same
has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.509 of 2016 Additional Mahila Court,
Dindigul District. Hence the petitioners prayed to quash the same.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
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:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
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
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
` 9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.509 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional
Mahila Court, Dindigul. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
25.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/no
vsd
To
1.The Additional Mahila Court,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dindigul.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MDO.No. 4952 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
vsd
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4952 of 2020
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
