Madras High Court
Srisanth vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16897 & 16899 of 2019
1.Srisanth
2.Susila
3.Jaganathan
4.Mohanambal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Perur,
Coimbatore District.
2.Indhumathi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the file of
the learned Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore and to
quash the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr. Mr.C.Prabakaran
for Mr.A.Tamilarasan
For Respondents : Mr. N.S. Suganthan, for R1
Government Advocate
Mr. W.Camyles Gandhi, for R2
ORDER
This petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on
the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level),
Coimbatore and to quash the same.
2. The petitioners herein are accused in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the
file of Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. The charge against these
accused is that the defacto complainant, Indumathi married the first
petitioner-Srisanth on 29.05.2013, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the
time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of jewels and house hold articles were
given as sridhana by the parents of the defacto complainant. The first
petitioner and his parents, told her that first petitioner running a firm by
name "Sorgha Agro Farm" but, however, after marriage, she came to know
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
that he is not running any company and he is a jobless flatter besides a
drunker. When this was complaint to the other accused, who are in-laws,
she was threatened and put to harassment. He took away the 20 sovereigns
jewels given during marriage and gave it to second and third accused.
When she enquired about her jewels, she came to know that it was handed
over to the husband of the fourth accused. When she demanded the jewels
back, she was subjected to torture and cruelty. She was locked in the room
and left without food. Her parents were providing the provisions for their
livelihood. When she was conceived, she was not taken proper care by her
husband and in laws and she was put under threat that if she does not bring
Rs.2 lakhs from her parents, they will kill her and the child in the womb.
Due to the cruelty, fetus got aborted. For the delivery expenses of the fourth
accused, they demanded Rs.2 lakhs which has forced her to leave the
matrimonial home and give complaint, which was originally taken as
CSR.No.415 of 2016, later, FIR was registered and on completion of
investigation, final report filed and taken cognizance by the Additional
Mahila Court, Coimbatore in C.C.No.49 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the entire complaint is figment of imagination, the defacto
complainant herein left the matrimonial home on her own and filed
complaint against these petitioners. On investigation, police found that the
allegations are false and frivolous. Thereafter, the petitioners approached
the Judicial Magistrate and filed petition under Clause 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
which was taken up for investigation and final report filed under the
pressure of the petitioners herein. Reading 161(3) statement of the
complainant and other statements, the learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the imaginary allegations against the petitioners will not
sustain the trial and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
3(i). As far as fourth petitioner who is the sister-in-law of
defacto complainant, the counsel would specifically submit that during the
alleged period, the fourth petitioner was residing in USA and she came to
India for her delivery but she has been falsely implicated in this case as if,
she demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the defacto complainant and her parents to
meet out her delivery expenses and also would submit that the complete
reading of her previous statement does not make out any case of cruelty or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
dowry harassment against in-laws. Further, the counsel would also submit
that after this complaint, a petition for divorce filed by the first petitioner
and pending criminal case and divorce petition, the parties entered into
compromise and the defacto complainant agreed to receive Rs.5,50,000/-
and withdraw this complaint as well as filed petition for divorce under
Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage by consent.
However, after receiving Rs.4.5 lakhs and agreed to receive the balance sum
of Rs.1 lakh, on withdrawing C.C.No.49 of 2018, she turned around and did
not cooperate to pursue HMOP presented under Section 13(b) of Hindu
Marriage Act which has forced the first petitioner herein to file again a
petition for divorce and the same is pending.
3(ii). Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi Court
reported in 1999 1 Crimes 16 in Sathish Gathwal and Others Vs. State and
Another, which followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in State of Karnataka Vs. Munusamy and Others, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted the whole proceedings vitiated by the
second respondent is abuse of process of law. The relevant passage reads as
below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
9. The question is whether in these
circumstances the proceedings arising out of the said. FIR
should be allowed to be continued or not.
Section 482 of the Code reads as under:
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice."
It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court inter alia in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy &
Others that "In the exercise of the wholesome power under
Section 482, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding
if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to
be quashed."
4. Learned counsel for the second respondent / defacto
complainant per contra would submit that though the defacto complainant
agreed for mutual divorce and withdrawal of the criminal complaint, on the
promise by the petitioners herein to pay Rs.10 lakhs, while reducing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
agreement in writing, they have mentioned only Rs.5.50 lakhs and paid Rs.4
lakhs. Therefore, she did not agree for mutual divorce and withdrawal of
the complaint. Further, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant
would also submit that the first petitioner is in a habit of deserting the
defacto complainant and after a complaint, used to take her back to the
matrimonial home only to repeat his misconduct and torture the defacto
complainant. Since there are material against all the petitioners to
prosecute, the quash petition has to be dismissed.
5. On considering the statement recorded and relied by the
prosecution, particularly, the statement of the defacto complainant in
subsequent event which was recorded before the Court, and it admitted by
both the parties, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the
judgment of the Delhi High Court cited by the petitioners counsel, in an
identical situation, is more relevant and appropriate, with small deviation in
the fact of the case in hand. Since it is specifically alleged against him that
he had subjected the defacto complainant causing mental cruelty by not
providing her enough food and shelter. The allegations made as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
first petitioner/husband contains prima facie material for which the first
petitioner is liable to face the trial, but not against the other petitioners
against whom no material worth to prosecute placed. For the said reason,
the petition is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. The case against the petitioners 2 to 4 quashed, the
first petitioner ordered to face the trial.
17.06.2022
AT
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking
To
1.The Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Perur,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AT
Crl.O.P.No.31035 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16897 & 16899 of 2019
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
