Madras High Court

B.Sandeep vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 September, 2022

                                                                           Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 20.09.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                            Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021 and
                                             Crl.M.P.No.12885 of 2021

                     B.Sandeep                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.
                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       W-35, All Women Police station,
                       Tambaram, Chennai.
                       (Crime No.8 of 2021)

                     2. Priyanka                                               ...   Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
                     Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.8 of
                     2021 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the
                     same with regard to the petitioner.


                                         For Petitioners   : Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar

                                         For R1            : Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor




                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the

file of the 1st respondent/the Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police

station, Tambaram, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent / defacto complainant were in love for two years and the

petitioner assured to marry the 2nd respondent. They also started living

together and on 18.01.2021, the petitioner got married to the 2nd respondent.

In this circumstance, on 19.01.2021 the 2nd respondent came to know that

the petitioner has already got married with another girl. Since the petitioner

had suppressed the above fact and living together with the 2nd respondent,

she has lodged the complaint before the respondent Police and on the basis

of which, a case has been registered under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of

I.P.C.,

3. Heard Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent Police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

made by the 2nd petitioner are false and there are no prima facie materials to

make out a case against the petitioner under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of

I.P.C. The 2nd respondent being a tenant of the petitioner's father's house,

she had already known about the marital status of the petitioner and inspite

of the same, the 2nd respondent had chosen to file a false complaint.

5. The records would show that the manner in which the 2nd

respondent has been cheated by the petitioner. This is not a case which has

been registered against the petitioner without any basic material. Even

according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is already known to him and

no motive is stated against the 2nd respondent to give false case against the

petitioner. Since sufficient materials are available to make out a case

against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of

I.P.C., I do not feel, it is a proper case where the court has to exercise its

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

6. At the threshold stage of the case itself, the Court cannot conduct

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

any roving enquiry and it is for the prosecution to conduct a thorough

investigation to unravel the truth. In order to quash the proceedings under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., there should be some specific circumstance or cause

as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of

Gujarat reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843. In the said Judgment, it is held as

under:

"15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:-

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised

(i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(v) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well- being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

7. In the case in hand, the averments in the complaint themselves

serve as prima facie material to make out a case and hence the 1st

respondent should be allowed to proceed his investigation. Hence, the

Criminal Original petition is liable to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

However, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the investigation within

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

file a final report.

20.09.2022

vum Index:yes/No Speaking Order / Non speaking order

1. The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police station, Tambaram, Chennai.