Madras High Court
Gopi vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 February, 2022
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1910 and 1911 of 2022
1.Gopi
2.Sappani Muthu
3.Lakshmi ...Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District. ...1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Ilavarasi ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating in C.C.No.357 of 2018 pending on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.
357 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi,
thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 498
(A), 406, 147 and 506(i) of IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women
Harassment Act, in Crime No.7 of 2017, as against the petitioners.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the case of the prosecution is
that in the year 2009, the first petitioner and second respondent was
engaged to get married and thereafter, the first petitioner got government
job in Commercial Tax Department. The first petitioner and the second
respondent got married on 17.06.2010. 13 sovereign of gold jewels and
Rs.3 Lakhs had been given as customary dowry besides 5 sovereign of
gold chain and 6 gram of ring for the first petitioner. Out of the wedlock
the first petitioner and the defacto complainant blessed a child by name
Hansika. Since the first petitioner is working faraway place from the
resident of the defacto complainant, the petitioner alleged to have
demanded money from the defacto complainant. In the mean while, the
child of the first petitioner and the defacto complainant died on
13.04.2017. Thereafter, the problem between the petitioners and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
defacto complainant got aggravated since the said child had not been
given proper care and treatment which is the reason for the death of the
child.
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 respondent
police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2017 for the offences under
Sections 294 (b), 498 (A), 406, 147 and and 506(i) of IPC and section 4
of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, as against the petitioners and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 357 of 2018 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
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 High Court at this stage, when the matter
has been taken cognizance by the Competent
Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled
for.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
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
incorporated the ingredients necessary for
prosecuting the respondents for the offences
alleged. The question whether the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
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.357 of 2018 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Thenkasi. 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 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 nine months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
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 Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lr
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2561 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
