Madras High Court

Jayachandran vs The State Represented By on 28 August, 2023

                                                                           Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  Dated : 28.08.2023

                                                            CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                              Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021


                 Jayachandran                                                   ...Petitioner

                                                       Vs

                 1.The State Represented by,
                   Inspector of Police,
                   Ayyampettai Police Station,
                   Thanjavur District.
                   (Crime No.1454 of 2020)
                 2.D.Lakshmi
                 3.D.Kosimani                                                   ...Respondents

                 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                 Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records in Crime No.
                 1454 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same so
                 far as the petitioner is concern.
                                  For Petitioner              : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
                                  For 1st Respondent          : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor
                                  For 2nd Respondent          : No Appearance

                                                            ORDER

This petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No.1454 of 2020 on the file of

the first respondent police.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

2.According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant lodged a

complaint stating that the petitioner and deceased were living with her in-laws

and that in-laws of the deceased right from the date of marriage used to ask

the deceased to bring groceries whenever she returned back from her parental

home and since the deceased was unable to live peacefully at the matrimonial

home, she requested the petitioner to set up separate living house. For which,

he refused. Hence, the deceased who was upset, left to the parental home and

returned back on 20.12.2020. Further it is alleged that the in-laws of the

deceased refused to permit her to enter the matrimonial home and also abused

her. The mother in law, sister in law had caught hold of the hair of the

deceased and pushed her down and the father in law had hit the deceased with

bare hands by abusing her. Due to that incident, the deceased consumed rat

poison and thereafter, she was admitted in Thanjavur Medical College

Hospital on 20.10.2020 around 09.12 p.m., and thereafter, on the next day at

02.40 a.m., she was admitted in Kumbakonam Vijay Hospital where the

statement of the deceased was recorded and FIR was registered by the

respondent police in Crime No.1454 of 2020 under Sections 294(b) of IPC

r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and

thereafter, she was shifted to Thanjavur Government Hospital on 25.12.2020

and later she died on the same day at about 09.55 a.m. Hence, the first

respondent altered the Section from Section 294(b) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act into Section 304(B) of

IPC. Initially the petitioner was not arrayed as accused in the FIR. Even no

allegation was stated against him by the second respondent. Later the

respondent police arrested the petitioner on 19.06.2021 alleging that on

investigation, it came to light that knowing the acts of A1 to A3, the petitioner

supported the acts of the accused. There is no any ingredients to attract the

offence as against the petitioner. Hence, FIR against the petitioner is liable to

be quashed.

3.No counter was filed on the side of the respondents.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that

the defacto complainant had given complaint before the first respondent

police and the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.1454 of 2020

for the offence Section 294(b) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition

of Harassment of Woman Act and thereafter, the defacto complainant who was

admitted in the hospital, died on the hospital on 25.12.2020. In the FIR and

complaint, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned and no allegation

was levelled against the petitioner. Later the Investigating Officer arrested the

petitioner on 19.06.2021 alleging that on investigation, it came to light that

the petitioner knowing the acts of the accused supported the acts of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

accused and thereby, he was included as accused and there was no offence as

against the petitioner. Hence, FIR pending against the petitioner is liable to be

quashed.

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent

contended that the in-laws caused cruelty to the deceased and demanded

groceries from the deceased's house and she left matrimonial home and

thereafter on 20.12.2020, she again came to the house of the accused. At the

time, A1 to A3 have beaten the deceased and not allowed her to enter into the

house and thereafter, she consumed rat poison and she admitted in the hospital

where her statement was recorded and Crime No.1454 of 2020 was registered

under Section 294(b) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Woman Act. Thereafter, the petitioner admitted in

Kumbakonam Vijay Hospital and then on 25.12.2020, she was shifted in

Thanjavur Medical Hospital and she died on the same day. Hence, Section

was altered into Section 304(B) of IPC. The petitioner was also arrested by the

first respondent alleging that he supported the acts of the other accused.

Thereby, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

records.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

7.On perusal of records, it reveals that there is no allegation as against

the petitioner in the complaint and FIR. Initially FIR has been registered

against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and the petitioner

was not included in the FIR. Thereafter, since the deceased died, Section has

been altered into Section 304(B) of IPC. Then only, this petitioner was

arrested alleging that he has also supported the acts of the other accused. The

complainant who is the deceased herself, at the time of giving complaint has

not stated anything about the petitioner and no any piece of evidence is

available as against the petitioner. The first respondent arrested the petitioner

by stating that the petitioner supported the acts of A1 to A3. As per earlier

complaint, the petitioner was not present in the place of the occurrence and he

has not participated in the aforesaid offence. Without any material, the first

respondent has arrested the accused by stating that the petitioner has

supported the acts of A1 to A3 in the aforesaid FIR. The inclusion of the

petitioner in the aforesaid FIR is abuse of process of law. There is no

sufficient material or evidence to include the petitioner in this case.

8.The present case comes under rarest of rare case and at this juncture,

this Court would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharastra and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD).No.13045 of 2021

Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has issued some important guidelines, which reads as follows:

“i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;