Madras High Court
Thilagavathi vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 September, 2022
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.17057 of 2022
1. Thilagavathi
2. Sukumar Kannan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
49/1, Anna Salai, West Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015
2. Sarala Jaganathan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records pertaining to FIR No.92
of 2022 dated 02.04.2022 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police against the petitioners and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Siva Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.T.Arockia Das for R2
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.92 of
2022 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections
294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto
complainant/second respondent is that she is the wife of one Vetrivel
Thiagarajan, who is the brother of the first petitioner and the brother-in-
law of the second petitioner. The defacto complainant got married with
Vetrivel in the year 2008, after which both of them lived as husband and
wife in North Carolina, United States of America from 01.11.2009 and
they are the permanent citizens of United States of America. Later, due to
difference of opinion, both of them living separately from January 2021
and her husband filed a petition for Absolute Divorce before the Courts
of North Carolina. The further case is that on 17.03.2022 at around
10.30am., when she had gone to her matrimonial house, the first
petitioner intruded her husband and dictated him to throw her outside and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
started to videographing the same along with the second petitioner. They
have also abused her using filthy languages and grabbed her forearm
causing injury and one Ashok Kumar wcalled by the petitioners and they
pushed her to the floor and her hand bag was stolen by the petitioners,
which was returned only after her threat to file a police complaint.
Hence, the complaint is registered against the petitioners.
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. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.92 of 2022 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as against the
petitioners. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit
that on 17.03.2022 at around 10.30am., when she had gone to her
matrimonial house, the first petitioner intruded her husband and dictated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
him to throw her outside and started to videographing the same along
with the second petitioner. They have also abused her using filthy
languages and grabbed her forearm causing injury and one Ashok Kumar
wcalled by the petitioners and they pushed her to the floor and her hand
bag was stolen by the petitioners, which was returned only after her
threat to file a police complaint.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have
only to file final report.
6. Heard Mr.L.Siva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.Arockia Das, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent.
7. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
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.
8. 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted."
9. 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, the first respondent is directed to
complete the investigation in Crime No.92 of 2022 and file a final report
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.
14.09.2022
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Vv
To
1. The The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
49/1, Anna Salai, West Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.17057 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
Crl.O.P.No.17057 of 2022
14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
