Madras High Court

Sree Hari Venkatesan vs The State Represented By Its on 25 February, 2022

                                                                1

                                    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        DATED: 25.02.2022

                                                            CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3882 of 2022
                                                               and
                                             CrlM.P.(MD) No.2834 and 2835 of 2022

                     Sree Hari Venkatesan                                       ...Petitioner


                                                                    Vs.

                     1. The State represented by its
                        The Inspector of Police
                        All Women Police station
                        Karur District

                     2. Aswini                                                        ...Respondents


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the records relating to the impugned Charge Sheet C.C.No.32/2021 on
                     the file of respondent police in so far as petitioner concerned and quash the
                     same.
                                       For Petitioner      : M/s.M.Natarajan

                                       For Respondents     : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                       No.1                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of

2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Karur

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The respondent's father is namely one Vijayakumar none other than

father in law of the petitioner. Then, the said Vijayakumar was looking for

marriage proposals for his daughter from various sources. One of his relatives

via, respondent's profile was shared to the petitioner and his family members.

Initially, the petitioner's family did not agree for the said proposal, since the

respondent's mother and father had some rude characteristics. However, due

to some persistent finally agreed for marriage because the 2 nd respondent is a

tennis player and Bharathanatyam Dancer and the said marriage was

solemnized on 15.09.2013 at Angalaparameswari Amman Kovil,

Kaavalipalayam, Karur in the presence of both family members as per our rites

and customs with limited invitees which is around 200 persons only. It is

further pertinent to mention that the petitioner and his parents never made

any dowry demands, however the 2nd respondent's parents say that we have

only one girl baby. We have to do something in our capacity. As per the

petitioner and his parents knowledge, 2nd respondent wore around 50

sovereigns of gold ornaments and other silver items, including some

household articles. After the said marriage, the first night happened at the

petitioner's house at Kerala except on this day and for another one week, the

2nd respondent never stayed at the petitioner's home. Morefully, sometimes

the petitioner's parents and also their relatives were compelled to attend som

auspicious function and travelling around the temple since, the petitioner is

working in Saudi Arabia. It is further pertinent to note that during the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

night, all jewels were given to the 2nd respondent's mother except daily use

jewels and the petitioner and his parents never thinking of it, the

respondent's respective jewels matter. Further after the said marriage, the

petitioner went to Saudi Arabia for his work and he arranged a visa to the

respondent and to take her to Saudi on 29th November, 2013. The petitioner is

sadly informed that the respondent does not know basic cooking and does not

even wash the utensils. However, he managed with office work and trained

her to do the house work. But, respondent's mother simply informed over the

phone, ''She is the queen of our home, she does not know anything, you

should not ask her to do any works''. However, the petitioner is doing his work

because before marriage he cooked for himself and after marriage he also

cooked for herself too. These factors were never informed by the petitioner

to his parents, because he thought both the parents are senior citizens, they

worried about his life.

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.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in

this case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side

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

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.”

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the Additional

Mahila Court, Karur The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds

before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a

period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

25.02.2022