Madras High Court
Kathirvel Murugan vs M.Keerthika on 25 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5588 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3966 & 3969 of 2022
1. Kathirvel Murugan
2. Saroja
3. N.Vairamani
4. Manonmani ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos. 1 to 4
Vs.
M.Keerthika ... Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in the case in C.C No. 124 of 2020, on the file of the Additional
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and to quash the
same as illegal and in violation of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet
in C.C No. 124 of 2020, on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.09.2016, the marriage took
place between Kathirvel Murugan and Keerthika at Unnamalai Marriage Hall,
Manamadurai by following the Hindu Rights and customs. It is stated that at
the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent gave 35 sovereigns of gold
jewels and house-hold articles worth about Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) as dowry. Out of happy wedlock on 18.01.2018, the respondent herein
had given birth to a male child. It is stated that the second petitioner is the
mother-in-law and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the sister-in-law of the
respondent. It is alleged that the accused have inflicted cruelty upon the
respondent demanding more dowry. The accused have driven out the
respondent from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the accused have
attacked the respondent, when she was living in the matrimonial home.
3. It is also submitted that on 13.07.2020, the respondent herein has
submitted a complaint before All Women Police Station, Manamadurai to take
action against six persons. The Police had received a complaint and issued a
receipt. The CSR Number is 150/2020. The Police did not take any steps to
register the FIR. Therefore, on 17.09.2020, she has filed a complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manamadurai. The learned Judicial Magistrate treat the complaint as it is filed
under Section 200 Cr.P.C, recorded the respondent's sworn statement on
21.10.2020. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai took the case on file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
in C.C.No.124 of 2020 under Sections 324, 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and directed to issue
summon to the petitioners herein. The petitioners have entered appearance in
the case, through their counsel. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no
other alternative efficacious remedy other than filing the present quash petition.
4. 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
case as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.124 of 2020, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai. Hence they prayed to quash the same.
5. 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
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.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
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.”
7. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
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.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C No. 124 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai. The petitioners is at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal
appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a
counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be
present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges,
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of nine months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.03.2022
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.
To
1.The Additional District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manamadurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5588 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P(MD)No.5588 of 2022
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3966 & 3969 of 2022
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
