Madras High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 14 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :14.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13618 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6247 and 6248 of 2020
Ashok kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Sattur, Virudhunagar District
2. Geetha ..Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to C.C.
No.20 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Sattur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
For R-2 :Mr.K.P.Sankarakumarakuruparan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
charge sheet in C.C. No.20 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
2. According to the petitioner the second respondent gave
complaint before the All Women Police Station, Sankarankovil on
06.01.2018 as against the petitioner and others. Since complaint was not
registered she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil in Crl.M.P.No.261 of 2018. Based on
the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, All
Women Police Station, Sankarankovil registered a case in Crime No.01 of
2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b),498(A) and 506(ii) of IPC.
Thereafter the said case was transferred to the file of All Women Police
Station, Sattur on the ground of jurisdiction point and then the First
Information Report has been registered in crime No.1 of 2019 by the
respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and
498(A) of IPC and section 4 of D.P.Act. Thereafter the respondent police
filed final report and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Sattur in C.C. No.20 of 2020. In that case the petitioner
was arrayed as A5. The case of prosecution is that the second respondent
married one Rajivgandhi on 08.11.2009 who is A1 in this case. The
second accused is the maternal uncle and the third accused is the sister
of the first accused and the fourth accused in the husband of the third
accused and the fifth accused is the son of the A3 and A4. As per
prosecution case, the accused 2 to 5 arranged marriage between the
first accused and the defacto complainant. Since the first accused was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
working in Army whenever he return from army at the instigation of the
accused 2 to 5 the first accused tortured the second respondent
physically and mentally in a drunken mood. Further all the accused
harassed her and insisted her to bring dowry. Thereafter the second
respondent gave complaint and the respondent registered a case and
then altered the sections from 294(b), 506(ii), 498(A)of IPC and Section 4
of D.P.Act into Sections 294(b),406,506(ii), 498(A) of IPC and Section 4
of D.P.Act. Infact the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged
in the First Information Report . The first respondent without conducting
any proper enquiry filed final report and the same is liable to be
quashed.
3. No counter was filed by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
the petitioner has given petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil and the Magistrate has forwarded the petition under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to the All Women Police Station, Sankarankovil
and thereafter it was transferred to the file of the first respondent herein
on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter the first respondent investigated
the case and filed final report. The first respondent has not investigated
the case in a proper manner and there is no specific allegation as
against this petitioner and the allegations are only general and omnibus .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
The investigation officer failed to investigate the case in a proper manner
and mechanically filed final report as against this petitioner. The
petitioner is no way connected with the crime. He is the sister son of the
first accused and inorder to rope him as an accused a false complaint
has been given by the second respondent. Further on the date of
occurrence the petitioner was not present in the scene of of occurrence
and he was present in the coaching centre at Tenkasi, therefore the
above said charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/defacto complainant would contend that this petitioner along
with other accused have tortured the defacto complainant and demanded
dowry and very often they used to harass the defacto complainant and
thereby she lodged complaint before the All Women Police Station,
Sankarankovil and the same was not enquired by them. Hence she filed a
petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the same was forwarded to
the file of the first respondent and the first respondent after elaborate
investigation filed final report and as per the final report this petitioner
also directly participated in the occurrence. As far as alibi is concerned
it is a matter for trial and this defence cannot be considered at this stage
and the petitioner has to face the trial and thereby the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
6. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for
the official respondent would contend that based on the complaint given
by the second respondent the first respondent registered First
Information Report . Thereafter the first respondent conducted thorough
investigation and filed final report and as per the final report this
petitioner along with other accused had committed the offence as
mentioned in the charge sheet. Since prime facie materials are available
to proceed with the case as against this petitioner and at this stage this
petitioner has to face the trial and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the alleged date
of marriage is on 08.11.2009. At that time this petitioner was minor and
no chance to arrange marriage between A1 and the second respondent.
Even according to the complaint no specific allegation has been made as
against the petitioner and only general and omnibus allegations are
made, as against A2 to A5 with regard to uttering of obscene words. The
allegation against this petitioner is that he only instructed the first
accused not to live with the second respondent. This vague allegation is
not sufficient to constitute the offence as against this petitioner. Further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
even according to the final report there is no specific overt act as against
this accused and the allegations are general and omnibus.
9. At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar and Sonam and Ors.vs. State of Bihar and Ors in Criminal
Appeal No.195 of 2022, wherein it is held as follows:
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the
misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false
implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course
of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of
the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the
contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general
allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant
alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of
terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein,
i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are
therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been
made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution”
10. On a careful reading of the above judgment it is clear that
the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives
in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute and dowry death. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out.
11. In view of the above discussion and the as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court that for general and omnibus allegations this
petitioner need not face the trial, thereby the charge sheet is liable to be
quashed.
12. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and
the proceedings in C.C. No.20 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur is hereby quashed in so far the
petitioner alone. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
14.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Sattur, Virudhunagar District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD).No13618 of 2020
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
