Madras High Court
D.Saranraj vs The State on 13 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12380 of 2022
D.Saranraj ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The state
Represented by The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.
2.Uthira ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.60 of 2022 on the
file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same as illegal and
without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Harikrishnan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in Crime No.60 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police
and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2021, the marriage
was solemnized between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein and
they lived for one month happily. Thereafter, the petitioner used to beat
the 2nd respondent by demanding huge dowry and also abused her in a
filthy language. Further, the petitioner did not look into the 2nd
respondent and the newly born male child. Hence, she lodged a
complaint before the first respondent police and a case has been
registered in Crime No.60 of 2022 for the offence under Section 498(A)
of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was not consummated with the 2nd respondent. He
would also submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not
committed any offence and denied the entire allegations as alleged by the
prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has also filed a
petition in HMOP.No.138 of 2022 on the file of learned Family Court,
Villupuram and the same was pending. Without any base, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2022 for the
offence under Section 498(A) of IPC as against the petitioner. Hence, he
prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first
respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and
the respondent police have only to file final report.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.
6. On perusal of the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section
498(A) of IPC 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
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 in Crime No.60 of 2022 on the file of
the first respondent Police.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2022
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
nr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
nr
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.18754 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.12380 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
