Madras High Court

R. Hemnath vs The State on 2 August, 2022

                                                                                        Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated: 2/8/2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                               Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022
                                                          and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.5108 of 2022
                     R. Hemnath                            ...         Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     1. The State
                        rep. By The Inspector of Police
                        Central Crime Branch – II
                        Vepery
                        Chennai 600 007.

                     2. V. Kamaraj.                       ...             Respondents

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
                     quash the final report in Sessions Case in S.C.No.124 of 2021 dated 3/7/2021,
                     pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur.


                                        For Petitioner      ...     Mr.S.Prabhakaran
                                                                    Senior Counsel
                                                                    for Mr.R.Krishna Kumar

                                        For Respondents         ... Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                                    Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                                    for R.1.
                                                                    Mr.D.Selvam
                                                                    for R.2.

                     Page No:1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                              Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022


                                                               ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report, in

Sessions Case in S.C.No.124 of 2021 dated 3/7/2021, pending on the file of the

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as

follows:-

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner

and (deceased) was a love marriage. The marriage was registered, on

19/10/2020, before the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. It is alleged that on

9/12/2020, the victim hanged herself in a ceiling fan at “Pleasant Days.”

Hence, a complaint was lodged before Nazarathpet Police Station, in Crime

No.756 of 2020, dated 9/12/2020, under Section 174 (3) of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. Subsequently Section has been altered for the offences under Sections

306 and 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that due

to constant cruelty and torture by the accused, the deceased took the extreme

step of ending her life.

Page No:2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

4. Pending trial in S.C.No.124 of 2021 before the Mahila Court,

Tiruvallur, the petitioner has moved this instant Criminal Original Petition,

praying for the relief supra.

5. Heard Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent

and Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that case has been filed on a wrong premise. According to him, there is no

circumstances available on record, to attract the offence under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. It is further pointed out that Section 498 A of the

Indian Penal Code would not stand attracted as the Revenue Divisional Officer

has given a report to the effect that no dowry demand has been made. To

substantiate his case, he has pointed out various statements of the witnesses.

7. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following

judgments:-

(i). Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors

(2021) 2 SCC 427

Page No:3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

(ii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021.

(iii). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. By The Inspector of Police (2021 SCC

Online – 715)

(iv). M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC 315

(v). S.A.Margaret Angel and Ors Vs. State and Others {Crl.O.P.(MD)

No.15407 of 2016}, decided on 5/10/2018.

8. Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions supra,

the learned Senior Counsel prays to quash the final report, pending before the

learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruvallur, in Sessions Case No.124 of

2021, dated 3/7/2021.

9. Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out

that there are serious materials unearthed during investigation against the

accused, hence opposes the petition.

10. Mr. Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

would submit that charges against the accused are serious and heinous.

Page No:4/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

Probative value of the statements cannot be gone into while exercising the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

11. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, this Court, cannot assume the role of trial Court or conduct

a mini trial to assess the probative value of the statements. On looking at the

statements of the parents and other witnesses, specific allegations have been

made that the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty and there was constant

harassment, suspecting her fidelity, which forced the deceased to take the

extreme step.

12. When there are materials available on record, whether those

statements amount to instigation or incitement is a matter of evidence to be

appreciated by the trial Court. From the materials available on record, it could

be seen that on the date of alleged suicide, the petitioner's presence was spoken

to by the witnesses coupled with their statements and other materials unerringly

gives a prima facie inference as to the likelihood of the involvement of the

accused in the act of contemplation for suicide by the deceased. When there

are materials collected by the prosecution, which prima facie show the

involvement of the accused in driving the deceased to take extreme act, this

Page No:5/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

Court, cannot make a roving enquiry while exercising power under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by appreciating all the evidence, which

would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

13. It is also to be noted that in Trial, the question of proof of facts

would not always dependent on the evidence. Section 3 of the Evidence Act,

defines the expression "Evidence", which stipulates that all statements which

the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to

matters of fact under inquiry. The expression of the word "Proved" is also

found in Section 3, which provides that A fact is said to be proved when, after

considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or

considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the

circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

14. The word "matter" found in Section 3 has a wide connotation and it

includes inference, statutory presumptions and admissions, etc. All those

things are to be seen by the trial Court in the back drop of the evidence of the

witnesses, who have spoken about the harassment meted out by the petitioner to

the deceased, thereby inflicting mental cruelty.

Page No:6/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the

following decisions, viz.,

(i). Velladurai Vs. State, rep. By The Inspector of Police (2021 SCC Online – 715)

(ii). M. Arjunan Vs. The State (2019) 3 SCC 315

(iii). Shabbir Hussain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, dated 26/7/2021. In the above judgments cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that offence under Section 306 of

IPC is not made out and those judgements are rendered in appeal while

appreciating the substantive evidence. Therefore, the above judgments relied

on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner will not be

applicable to the facts of the present case.

16. With regard to the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of

Maharashtra reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, the Hon'ble Apex Court

considering the manner in which the FIR has been filed in that case, quashed

the FIR. Thus, this judgment also will not be helpful to the petitioner.

Page No:7/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

17. In Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that offence under Section 306 of IPC is

serious in nature and it is a crime against the society and therefore disapproved

the quashing of the charges on the ground of compromise. In paragraph 38 and

40 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

"38. However, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, criminal complaint and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court, as observed above, has to be circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society.

Page No:8/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

39. Orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent, where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to extract money from the accused. Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free, even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder, rape, bride-burning, etc. by buying off informants/complainants and settling with them. This would render otiose provisions such as Sections 306, 498-A, 304-B etc. incorporated in the IPC as a deterrent, with a specific social purpose.

40. In Criminal Jurisprudence, the position of the complainant is only that of the informant. Once an FIR and/or criminal complaint is lodged and a criminal case is started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and the accused. The State has a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained in society. It is for the state to prosecute offenders. In case of grave and serious non- compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right

Page No:9/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 8783 of 2022

of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society." (Emphasis added)

18. To find out whether there is an instigation or incitement or other

circumstances to attract the offence under Section 306, it could be seen only by

appreciating the evidence placed before the trial Court. Therefore, all the

aforesaid issues could be considered only at the time of trial. Therefore,

quashing of the final report would be nothing but predetermining the issue

without allowing the trial to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is not

what is envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the ratio laid

down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court

Cases – 335.

19. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court cannot interfere with the final

report at the present stage by quashing it and, accordingly, this Criminal

Original Petition is dismissed. Considering the over all circumstances, the