Madras High Court
K.Mathanraj vs State Represented By on 29 April, 2022
1
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.8288 of 2022
AND
Crl.M.P(MD).No.5598 of 2022
K.Mathanraj ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Pudukkottai
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.19 of 2020)
2.Victoria Maharani
. ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to call for the entire records
pertaining to the F.I.R in Crime No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector
of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District
and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No. 19/2020 on the file of the first respondent
police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.01.2019, the petitioner
got married with the second respondent. After marriage, the petitioner
along with his parents demanded dowry from the second respondent and
harassed her. The mother of the petitioner gave medicine to the second
respondent with a view to cause abortion. After that, on 16.07.2020, the
second respondent blessed with a male child. The petitioner beaten her
and tried to took the child with him. But, due to the interference of the
neighbours, the petitioner is said to have escaped therefrom. Thereafter,
the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of
Police, Pudukkottai and based on that FIR had been registered in Crime
No.19/2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police
registered a case in Crime No. 19/2020 for the offences under Sections
498(A), 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the investigation is completed and the respondent police are about to file
the final report before the concerned court.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.
Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.
Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the
FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such
this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in
accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
7.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated
12.02.2019 - Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of
Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our
consideration in this case is whether the
High Court was right in setting aside the
order by which process was issued. It is
settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage
of taking cognizance and summoning, is
required to apply his judicial mind only with
a view to taking cognizance of the offence,
or in other words, to find out whether a
prima facie case has been made out for
summoning the accused persons. The
learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or
evidence in support of the complaint,
because the Magistrate must not undertake
the exercise to find out whether the materials
would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings
is called for only in a case where the
complaint does not disclose any offence, or
is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open
to the High Court to quash the same. It is
not necessary that a meticulous analysis of
the case should be done before the Trial to
find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a
reading of the complaint and consideration
of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients
of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for the High Court to
interfere.
6.........
7.........
8........
9. Having heard the learned Senior
Counsel and examined the material on
record, we are of the considered view that
the High Court ought not to have set aside
the order passed by the Trial Court issuing
summons to the Respondents. A perusal of
the complaint discloses that prima facie,
offences that are alleged against the
Respondents. The correctness or otherwise
of the said allegations has to be decided only
in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of
process it is not open to the Courts to stifle
the proceedings by entering into the merits
of the contentions made on behalf of the
accused. Criminal complaints cannot be
quashed only on the ground that the
allegations made therein appear to be of a
civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused are prima facie
made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition
stands dismissed. However, the first respondent police is directed to
complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned
Magistrate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed.
29.04.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
lr
Note: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 Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Pudukkottai
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8288 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
