Ananthavalli vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 9063 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9063 Mad
Judgement Date : 28 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Ananthavalli vs State Represented By on 28 April, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       DATED: 28.04.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022
                                                           and
                                          Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.5486 and 5489 of 2022

                     Ananthavalli                               ... Petitioner/Accused No.3

                                                               Vs

                     1.State Represented by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Srirangam All Women Police Station,
                       Trichy District.
                       Crime No.04 of 2019              ...1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Mathivathani                       ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant


                     Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
                     for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.1496 of 2019 on the file of
                     the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same insofar as the
                     petitioner/A3 is concerned.


                                      For Petitioner      : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran

                                      For R1              : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor


                     1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022


                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned

proceedings in C.C.No.1496 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila

Court, Trichy.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute

between the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner and his

family members harassed the second respondent by demanding additional

dowry and also driven out the second respondent from her matrimonial

home. Based upon the complaint given by the second respondent, the

present case came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is an innocent person and he had not committed any offence

as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.04 of 2019 for the offences under Sections

498-A, 406 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner and other accused

and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1496 of 2019 on the file

of the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

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

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

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., 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022

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.

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

the proceedings in C.C.No.1496 of 2019 on the file of the Additional

Mahila Court, Trichy. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds

before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner, the personal

appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented

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

shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8135 of 2022

charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing