Madras High Court
S.V.Dhanasekar vs State Rep By on 27 June, 2022
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.15675 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.No.6023 of 2020
S.V.Dhanasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep by
Inspector of Police,
N-1, Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai District.
(Cr.No.801 of 2020)
2. Vinothini ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in
Crime No.801 of 2020 dated 23.05.2020 pending investigation on the file
of the first respondent police and quash the FIR in Crime No.801 of 2020
dated 23.05.2020 registered against the petitioner for an alleged offence
under Section 451 and 323 of IPC.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Y.George Williams
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1
: M.Himavanth for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.801 of
2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections
451 and 323 of IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2020, the defacto
complainant's brother's father-in-law namely, the petitioner herein, came
to her house and made a wordy quarrel and asked her brother to stay in
his house permanently or otherwise hand over his grandson to him. When
the same was refused by the defacto complainant/second respondent, the
petitioner has pulled her down, due to which, she got aborted when she
was pregnant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
days of occurrence, the complaint has been lodged. Infact, thereafter, the
defacto complainant and her husband entered into a compromise and they
got separated, infact, the defacto complainant also delivered a baby.
Therefore, no such occurrence took place to abort the child.
4. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are very serious
allegations as against the petitioner that the petitioner had pulled her
down and due to which she got aborted. Though she delivered a baby, the
mental agony suffered by her and also the occurrence had taken place, as
alleged by the second respondent herein.
5. That apart, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has
perused the final report that the petitioner has been charged for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 423 and 321 of IPC. Though
the final report is yet to be filed by the first respondent and the
investigation is not completed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by both counsel, this Court finds no merit to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
complaint lodged by the second respondent and this petition is liable to
be dismissed.
7. In this regard it is 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 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State
of Maharashtra & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-
"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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
no justification for the High Court to
interfere.
......................
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
interdicted."
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition stands dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.801 of 2020 and file a final
report within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2022
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Vv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
J-8, Neelankarai Police Station,
Chennai – 600 115.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.15675 of 2020
Vv
Crl.O.P.No.15675 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.No.6023 of 2020
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
