Madras High Court

Zarina Banu vs State Represented By Its on 8 September, 2022

                                                                            Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 08.09.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                            Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022
                                           and Crl.M.P.No.9688 of 2022

                     1. Zarina Banu
                     2. Zahir Hussain                                           ...Petitioners

                                                           Vs.
                     1.State represented by its,
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       W.20, All Women Police Station,
                       Saidapet, Chennai – 600 018.

                     2.Zeenath Nisha                                            ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
                     to call for the entire records in pursuant to the Crime No.5 of 2021 dated
                     28.07.2021 on the file of the respondent, W.20 All Women Police Station,
                     Saidapet and quash the same.


                                         For Petitioners     : Mr.D.Sakthivel

                                         For Respondents
                                               For R1    : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor

                                               For R2        : Ms.Jayashree Dharbar



                     Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

F.I.R in Crime No.5 of 2021 dated 28.07.2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 406, 506(1) of IPC and Sections

4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the file of the first respondent

police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused got

married the second respondent on 18.09.1994 and even at the time of

marriage, there was a demand of huge dowry. Thereafter, the first

accused continuously harassed the defacto complainant for huge dowry

on the instigation of all the family members. Thereafter, she was driven

out from the matrimonial home for disobeying the demand of huge

dowry. After negotiation, she joined together with the first accused.

Again in the year 2017, they started harassment and demanded huge

dowry and she was driven out from the matrimonial home. Hence, the

second respondent lodged the present complaint as against the petitioners

and others.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that the first petitioner is the sister-in-law of the second respondent and

the second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner. They arrayed

as A2 and A3 in the present case. The marriage had taken place in the

year, 1994 and after the period of 29 years, the present complaint has

been lodged. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners induced

the first accused to demand more dowry from the second respondent.

Further the entire allegations are as against the first accused and no other

allegations made as against the petitioners to attract the offence as

alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to quash of the present FIR.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have

only to file final report.

5. Heard Mr.D.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the first respondent and Ms.Jayashree Dharbar, learned

counsel appearing for the second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

6. It is seen that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 & A3 and

there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the

offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an

encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and 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 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., as 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

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. ......................

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

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. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

Petition stands dismissed. However, considering the crime is of the year

2021, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in

Crime No.5 of 2021 and file a final report within a period of twelve

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the

jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.16612 of 2022

1.The Inspector of Police, W.20, All Women Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 018.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.