Madras High Court
G.Kannan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3159 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3159 of 2022
1.G.Kannan
2.Ganesan
3.Rajalakshmi ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.5 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Shanmugapriya ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.5 of 2021 under Section 417,
406, 376 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 if the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Shrebudeen
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R.1
Mr.L.Alagusundaram for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3159 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR as against
the petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.5 of 2021 on the file of the
first respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 406, 376 and
506(1) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the
first petitioner were loved each other for the past 6 years and the first petitioner
assured to mary the defacto complainant. The first petitioner is working as
police. On 18.09.2019, the first petitioner gave a false promise to marry the
defaco complainant and had intercourse with the defacto complainant at about
10.00 p.m and thereafter, also the first petitioner had sexual intercourse with the
defacto complainant on several occasion. But the first petitioner refused to
marry the defacto complainant aand on 29.05.2021 the defacto complainant met
the petitioners 2 and 3 and they abused the defacto complainant and further
demanded 80 soverigns of gold for marriage and threatened the defacto
complainant with dire consequences, she lodged a complaint.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3159 of 2022
case in Crime No.5 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 417, 406, 376 and
506(1) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as against the
petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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.3159 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3159 of 2022
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."
8.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 first respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation and file the final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
28.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3159 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
To
1.All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.3159 of 2022
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
