Madras High Court
R.Vinothkumar vs The State Represented By on 12 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.3416 of 2022
1. R.Vinothkumar
2. S.Rajakumaran
3. R.Saraswathi
4. R.Manojkumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by:
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Devala, The Nilgiris District,
Pincode-643211.
2. Jaraniyaa GR
(R2 impleaded as per order
dated 11.08.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.12529 of 2022
in Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the FIR registered in the F.I.R.No.01 of 2022 in the file of
Respondent Police against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kathiravan
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.J.Franklin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.1 of 2022
registered by the first respondent police for offences under Section 498(A) of
IPC, as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally 4 accused and
the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The petitioners harassed the defacto
complainant and compelled her to bring money from the father of the defacto
complainant and demanded dowry. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no specific date of occurrence
alleged to have committed by the petitioners. This is the second complaint
filed by the second respondent. That apart, the first petitioner filed a petition
for restitution of conjugal rights and it is pending. In fact, this matter was
referred before Mediation and the second respondent is not willing to settle the
issue. He also pointed out that the District Welfare Officer conducted an
enquiry and found that there was no dowry harassment by the petitioners.
Therefore, there was no harassment due to dowry and the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
Section 498A of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners. Insofar as
the fourth petitioner is concerned, he is none other than the brother of the first
accused and he is no way connected with the alleged crime since he is residing
separately. Unnecessarily he has been implicated in this case and facing
harassment with the hands of the second respondent. Therefore, without any
base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2022 for
the offences under Section 498A of IPC, as against the petitioners. Hence he
prayed to quash the same.
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.S.Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the first respondent and Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
6. It is seen that even though there is no allegations to attract the
offence under Section 498A of IPC, there are specific allegations that the
petitioners harassed the defacto complainant. Though the date of occurrence is
not mentioned specifically by the second respondent, the offence under Section
498A of IPC is continuous one and as such 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 its 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
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 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the
first respondent Police. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Devala, The Nilgiris District,
Pincode-643211.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6088 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.3416 of 2022
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
