Madras High Court
Rajasekaran vs State Through on 30 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5816 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4109 of 2022
1. Rajasekaran
2. Ayyammal
3. Ramesh ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. State through
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.06/2022)
2. Vishalini ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned FIR in Crime No.06 of 2022
dated 26.02.2022, on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the
same as illegal as against this petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vikram
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in Crime No.06 of 2022 , on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the third
petitioner and the second respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2018 at MGM
Mahal and at that time of the parents of the second respondent offered 52
sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1,00,000/- cash as dowry. Thereafter there
was some misunderstanding between the mother-in -law and the second
respondent and for separate home, the third petitioner pledged 15
sovereigns of gold jewellery and the complainant went to her parental home
for delivery and she delivered a female child. When she return back to her
matrimonial home after delivery, the mother-in-law demanded additional
dowry of 20 lakhs for his son to start new business. Thereafter on
18.05.2021, in the birthday celebration of the defacto complainant's daughter
her mother-in-law again demanded Rs.20,00, 000/-Due to said harassment
the defacto complainant lodged complaint and thereafter due to request made
by the mother-in-law, she has withdrawn the complaint. On 26.11.2021 at
about 8.00 am., her mother-in-law grabbed her hair and pulled in wall and
also threatened her to bring Rs.20,00,000/- or else she would kill her. On
hearing the alarm made the neighbors came to the place. On seeing them,
the petitioners left, hence the present case came to be registered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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., where
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in it is held follows:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 respondent police is directed to complete the
investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Theni District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5816 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4109 of 2022
30.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
