Madras High Court

Christopher Raj vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 September, 2022

                                                                               Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 16.09.2022

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022
                                                            and
                                             Crl.M.P.Nos.14359 and 14360 of 2022

                1. Christopher Raj
                2. Dorothy
                3. Koildurai
                4. Kirit V.Shah                                            ... Petitioners
                                                            Vs.

                1. The Inspector of Police,
                   All Women Police Station-East,
                   Coimbatore City.
                   Crime No.4 of 2021

                2. Jedidhah                                               ... Respondents
                Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
                Procedure, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1353 of
                2022, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore.
                                  For Petitioners    : Mr. J.Antony Jesus
                                  For R1             : Mr. S.Santhosh
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                                                          ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records

and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1353 of 2022, on the file of the Additional

Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto

complainant got married. It is alleged that A1 used to consume alcohol everyday

and used to attack the defacto complainant daily. Thereafter, the accused persons

demanded huge dowry from the defacto complainant and also threatened her with

dire consequences. 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. Without any base, the first respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 498(A),

406 and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken

cognizance in C.C.No.1353 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court

(Magistrate Level), Coimbatore. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the

trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this

case.

5. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the

case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-

" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.

6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of

the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of

Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held

as follows:

“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

completely incorrect and uncalled for.”

7. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order

dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.

K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:

"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.

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

13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged.

The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22304 of 2022

arise only at a later stage...................." The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points

raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in

quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court

(Magistrate Level), Coimbatore. The personal appearance of the petitioners are

dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate

application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time

of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.