Madras High Court
K.Vinayaga Moorthy vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1934 of 2022
1. K.Vinayaga Moorthy
2. B.Kanagaraj
3. K.Mahalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Theni District
2. Jamuna Devi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the
records relating to the Crime No.64 of 2021 registered by the first respondent
police, Theni on 27.11.20211 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shamugaraja
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Crime No.64 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The prosecution case is that the marriage between the first petitioner
and the second respondent was solemnized on 12.07.2020 at Kaliamman temple,
Kamarajarpuram. At the time of marriage the second respondent was offered
with 24 sovereigns of gold jewels and four sovereigns of gold was offered to the
first petitioner as dowry. On the very same day of marriage, they went to the
petitioner's home and her mother accompanied too. Thereafter the second
respondent became pregnant and it was confirmed on 10.08.2020 and later she
delivered a female child. Till the baby shower she remained at her mother's
house. In the mean time the petitioner went to work abroad on the 2nd
December . On 31.03.2021, an advocate notice was sent by the first petitioner.
Following the same the first petitioner filed HMOP No. 264 of 2021 for divorce
and after receiving the HMOP petition, the second respondent has preferred a
complaint as if she was harassed by the petitioners.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
registered a case in Crime No. 64 of 2021 for the offences under Sections
498(A) and 294 (b) of IPC as against the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost 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 petitioners, 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 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
"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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
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."
7. 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 respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.02.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Theni 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.2587 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2587 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.1934 of 2022
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
