Chinnammal vs The State Represented By The
2022 Latest Caselaw 5745 Mad

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED : 22.03.2022

                                                  CORAM

                              THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                        CRL.O.P.No.22470 of 2015


            1.Chinnammal

            2.Ramasamy

            3.Selvamani

            4.Ananthi                                        ...Petitioners


                                                    Vs.


            1.The State represented by the
             Inspector of Police
             All Women Police Station
             Perambalur
             Perambalur District
             (Crime No.10 of 2014)

            2.Ambika
            (Impleaded as per the order of this Court
            dated 16.10.2015 in M.P.No.3 of 2015 in
            Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015)                               ...Respondents



            Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
            Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

            1/12
                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

            Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, Perambalur District and quash the same.



                                  For Petitioners    : Mr.S.Kamadevan
                                  For Respondents : Mr.R.Murthi
                                                  Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1.
                                                  Mr.R.Sethuvarayar for R2.

                                                           ORDER

This petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Perambalur,

Perambalur District and quash the same.

2.The de-facto complainant/second respondent gave a complaint under Section

156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Perambalur and that was forwarded to the first respondent. The first respondent

registered a case in Perambalur Police station in Crime No.361 of 2014 for the

offences under Sections 406, 498 (A) and 506 (i) of I.P.C. The allegations made in

the complaint, in brief, are that,

The marriage between the first accused Kalairaj and the second respondent had

taken place on 09.02.2012. At the time of marriage, she was provided with 4

sovereign of gold necklace, 1 ¾ sovereign of ear stud, 3/4 sovereign of ring, 3

sovereign gold chain. First accused Kalairaj was provided with 1 sovereign of gold

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

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

ring and CBZ Hero Honda motor cycle. The house hold articles worth Rs.1,40,000/-

were also provided as seer. CBZ Hero Honda motor cycle was purchased at the

insistence of the first accused. One week after marriage, the accused weighed the

jeweleries of the second respondent and told her that one sovereign is missing in

weight out of the 10 sovereigns and asked her to get one sovereign from her parents.

At the insistence, she got one sovereign gold from her parents. Accused did not allow

second respondent to speak with her parents and the siblings. Her husband took her

to Singapore, even without informing her parents. After she got conceived in

Singapore, she was sent back to India all alone when she was eight months old

pregnant. Petitioners demanded that second respondent's parents should give gold

jewels for baby shower ceremony, else there would be no baby shower by her

parents. Only after her parents provided 2 sovereign of gold jewels, baby shower was

performed. Petitioners scolded second respondent in a very filthy language and

caused her physical and mental cruelty. A female child was born on 24.12.2012. Her

husband visited her twice and paid only Rs.1000/-. He has not cared for medical

expenses and other expenses of the just born child. They have not taken any steps to

take her to matrimonial home. But they demanded jewels to the child. Her husband

threatened to divorce her, if her parents do not provide jewels to the child. Therefore,

this case was given. After registering the case and after investigation, final report was

filed for the offences under Sections 406, 498 (A) and 506 (i) of I.P.C. Challenging https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

the final report, this petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint

allegations show that entire allegations were made only against her husband, the first

accused Kalairaj. The allegations made against the petitioners are only a generalized

allegations and there are no specific allegations of harassment, entrustment of

property and criminal intimidation. Petitioners are falsely implicated and therefore,

case against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that

specific allegations of harassment and other offences were made against the

petitioners and first accused and he prays for dismissal of this petition.

5.Learned Government Advocate, also submitted that there are materials

available against the petitioners for framing charges against them under Sections 406,

498 (A) and 506 (i) of I.P.C. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

6.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

7.The narration of complaint allegations shows that allegations are made with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

regard to demand of dowry prior to marriage, immediately after the marriage and

other demands made by the petitioners, first accused. In that process, it is alleged that

second respondent was subjected to cruelty by petitioners and her husband. It is

claimed that except an ear stud, all the other jeweleries of the second respondent are

available with her husband and the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioners and first

accused Kalairaj demanded dowry and CBZ Hero Honda motor cycle prior to

marriage. Even after the marriage, they demanded one sovereign gold jewel. They

prevented her from talking to her parents and her siblings. It is alleged that they

demanded jewels for conducting baby shower ceremony. Her husband neglected to

maintain her and the child. It is said that he threatened her that, only if her parents

provided gold jewels, he would take her to matrimonial home, else, he would divorce

her. These are the specific allegations made against the petitioners and her husband.

Based on these allegations, second respondent and her parents and other witnesses

have given statements.

8.These allegations are denied by the petitioners. Whether the allegations are

true or false, can be decided only after the examination of witnesses and its

appreciation. The truth or falsity of allegations made in the complaint in the statement

cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The law with regard

to quashing the charge sheet is very well settled. In reported judgment in 2013 (10) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

Supreme Court Cases 591 Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, it is

observed that,

20.The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed alongwith the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. (Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

@ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC

437).

21. In Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330, this Court while dealing with the issue held as follows: “ 30.Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

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

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?”

22. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1260, this Court dealt with an issue of whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet should be entertained before cognizance is taken by a criminal court and held as under:-

“68.......Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial…. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained….. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the chargesheets and the First Information Report.” (Emphasis added)

23.The issue of malafides looses its significance if there is a substance in the allegation made in complaint moved with malice.

In Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 877, this Court held as under:

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

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

“16......It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.”

24. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1274, this Court held as under:

“74The ultimate test, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, the plea of mala fides as raised cannot be maintained.”

25.In State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 3967, this Court held as under:

“8......It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of malafides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” (See also: K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 1 SCC 59).

26.Thus, in view of the above, it becomes evident that in case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with mala fides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal.

9.In the case before hand, as narrated above there are definite allegations made

against petitioners and her husband alleging cruelty, demanding dowry and gold

jewels, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation by her husband. There are

enough materials available for framing charges against the petitioners. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the request of the petitioners for quashing the

proceedings cannot be entertained and the Criminal Original Petition in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015 is dismissed.

10.It is informed that the case in C.C.No.361 of 2014, on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, Perambalur District is transferred to the Additional

Mahila Court, Perambalur and re-numbered as C.C.No.3 of 2016. Learned Judge, is

directed to dispose the case in C.C.No.3 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. Considering that the case related to matrimonial issue, the learned Judge, is

also directed to entertain 317 petition liberally, so that petitioners may be represented

by their counsel and proceed with the case.

11.In fine, Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015 is

dismissed.

22.03.2022 ep Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

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

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.,

ep To

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Perambalur Perambalur District.

2.Mr.R.Murthi Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

High Court of Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

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

Crl.O.P.No.22470 of 2015

22.03.2022

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