Madras High Court
K.Aabitha Khaleelul vs State Through on 1 December, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.2341 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2341 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.1029 of 2022
1.K.Aabitha Khaleelul
2.M.H.Khaleelullah
3.A.Siraj
4.K.Zainul Aafreen Fathima ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State through
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tambaram.
(R1 amended as per order
dated 18.07.2023 in
Crl.M.P.No.10499 of 2023
in Crl.O.P.No.2341 of 2022)
2.A.Benazir ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to call for records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.48 of 2022 dated 09.08.2021
on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.2341 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.Syed Abdul Mashood
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.48 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and defacto complainant are
husband and wife. It is alleged that A1 along with the petitioners herein
demanded huge dowry and tortured the defacto complainant. Hence, the
complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A5. They are in-laws and they have nothing to
do with the alleged occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
5. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
constitute the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
6. Therefore, the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all
facts and it cannot be quashed in its 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.
7. 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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding
shall not be interdicted."
8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.48
of 2022, on the file of the first respondent. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.48 of
2022 and file a final report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
01.12.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tambaram.
2.The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court.
and
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
