Madras High Court
Suresh vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 7 February, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2536 of 2022
and
CRL MP(MD)No.1895 and 1897 of 2022
1.Suresh
2.Madasamy
3.Thangammal .. Petitioners / A1 to A3
Vs.
1.State Rep.by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, - Town,
Tirunelveli City.
(Crime No.8 of 2019) ... Respondent / Complainant
2.Priyadharshini ... Respondent / Defacto
Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertaining to C.C.No.528 of 2021, pending on the file of the
learned Additional Mahila Court (Special Magistrate), Tirunelveli, quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Govt.Advocate (crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.528 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned
Additional Mahila Court (Special Magistrate), Tirunelveli.
2.The case of the prosecution is that second respondent preferred
Cr.M.P.No.9570 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Tirunelveli, seeking to register FIR based on her complaint. The grievance of
the second respondent is that she and the first petitioner got married on
13.09.2007. The first petitioner demanded Rs.7,00,000/- as dowry from the
second respondent's parents. After that by pledging the second respondent's
jewels, the first petitioner received Rs.5,00,000/- and bought car and further
demanded more dowry. The second respondent refused to the demand. Hence
the first petitioner drove the car and dashed against the second respondent in
which her left leg got fractured. On 21.03.2019 petitioners 1 and 2 absued the
second respondent by using filthy language. Then, she lodged a complaint at
the first respondent police station for which receipt in CSR.No.34/2018 was
issued. But no action has been taken, then she filed the above said petition
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli. The Trial Court
directed the first respondent to proceed further and to file final report. Based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this direction, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.8/2019 dated
03.09.2019.
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. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case
in Crime No.08 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A) 323, 294(b),
406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, as against the
petitioners and his sister. The same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.528
of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court (Special Magistrate),
Tirunelveli. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the trial has been
commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
` 9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.528 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned
Additional Mahila Court (Special Magistrate), Tirunelveli. The petitioners are
at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of
the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the petitioners 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 twelve months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
07.02.2022
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 Additional Mahila Court
(Special Magistrate),
Tirunelveli,
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station - Town,
Tirunelveli City.
3. 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.2536 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
