Madras High Court
J.Aravinth vs The Inspector Of Police on 29 April, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
and
Crl. M.P.(MD) No.5677 of 2022
1.J.Aravinth
2.A.Jeyavel
3.Vijayarani
4.Anbalagan
5.Malarvizhi
6.Dhanapaul
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Madurai.
(In Cr.No.19 of 2021) ...1st Respondent/ Complainant
2.Gayathri ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in C.C.No.180 /2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Additonal Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in
C.C.No.180 /2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additonal
Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of
the second respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 to 6 are in-
laws of the second respondent and the marriage between the first petitioner viz.,
J.Aravinth and the second respondent Viz.,Gayathri was solemnized on
01.12.2019. Thereafter, the second petitioner troubled the defacto complainant
for sex and compelled to watch obscene photos. Insofar as the other petitioners
3 to 6 are concerned, they have suppressed the impotencyt of the first petitioner
and threatened the defacto complainant to not to disclose any activities of the
first and second petitioners, 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
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 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 exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
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 in C.C.No.180 /2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Additonal Mahila Court, Madurai . The petitioners are at liberty to
raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance
of the petitioners 3 to 6 are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a
counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners 3 to 6
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 copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.5677 of
2022 stands dismissed.
29.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
vsg
Note: (i)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,
Madeira.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsg
Crl.O.P(MD)No.8419 of 2022
and
Crl. M.P.(MD) No.5677 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
