Madras High Court
Maneesh Bomb vs M on 17 July, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:17.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM
CRL.O.P.NO.25417 OF 2021
&
Crl.M.P.Nos.14086 & 14087 of 2021
Maneesh Bomb, ...
Petitioner
1. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police,
W-24, All Women Police Station,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 017.
(Cr.No.07 of 2020)
2. Pooja Bomb ...
Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the
records in C.C.No.3686 of 2021 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.R. Raja Gopal,
Senior counsel
For Respondents : Mr. L. Baskaran,
GA (Crl.side)-R1
Mr.Sathish Parasaran,
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
Senior counsel for
Mr.R.Parthasarathy - R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in
C.C.No.3686 of 2021 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the
husband of the 2nd respondent. He is an accused in C.C.No.3686 of 2021 on
the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In pursuance of a
complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case has been registered by the first
respondent police for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 324, and
506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Cr.No.7 of 2021. After
investigation, the first respondent police filed final report in C.C.No.3686 of
2021 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before the
trial court, the petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.17389 of 2022 in
C.C.No.3686 of 2021 to discharge him from the criminal proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
C.C.No.3686 of 2021, wherein, by order dated 28.4.2023, the learned trial judge
discharged the petitioner/husband from the offences under sections 324 and
506(ii) IPC and u/s. 4 of TNPHW Act, but he took cognisance against the
petitioner for the offence under section 498 A IPC. The ingredients constituting
the offence under section 498A is not attracted in the materials produced by the
prosecution. Further, there is no material and statement available on record to
show the wilful conduct and cruelty committed on the part of the petitioner/
husband upon his wife. In the circumstances, in the absence of commission of
any cruelty by the husband upon his wife, the offence under section 498A of
IPC will not be attracted.
4. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court reported in the following cases;
1. (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582 (State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.
Madhusudhan Rao.
2. (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 604 (Bhaskar Lal Sharma and
another Vs. Monica)
3. (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599 (Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam
and others Vs. State of Bihar and others)
He further submitted that in the absence of any ingredients, to meet out the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
offence constituting under section 498 A IPC, it will be a mere misuse of
provisions of Section 498A IPC and abuse of process of law, if the proceeding is
allowed to continue. Hence by invoking 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.3686 of 2021.
5. The learned Govt. Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent
police submitted that in this case, the trial was commenced and so far,
witnesses LW1 and LW3 were examined as PW1 and PW2 andthe case is
posted for further examination of witnesses on 21.07.2023.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant submitted that the 2nd respondent wife is 80% partially disabled
person. The petitioner/husband treated the 2nd respondent/wife cruelly and
changed the places where the objects were kept in the house, thus caused
hindrance to his wife, who is having partial blindness. He also poured oil on the
floor of the kitchen which lead to injuries sustained on her leg. The revision
petitioner has also made firing electric circuits that has given her shock and he
also threw glass cups against his wife and children and thereby she sustained
injuries. These acts amounts to clear activities of cruelty. Further whether it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
has been done unintentionally or not, has to be decided after letting in evidence
before the trial court. In the circumstances, it is inappropriate to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him.
7. He further submitted that now witnesses PW1 and 2 have been
examined and it has to be decided by the trial court and it has to be left to the
trial Judge to appreciate the evidence and hence the prosecution cannot be
quashed at this stage . Hence, he seeks to dismiss this criminal original petition.
8. Considered the arguments of both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
9. On perusal of facts and materials, the fact reveals that the petitioner is
an accused in C.C.No.3686 of 2021 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai. In pursuance of the complaint given by the informant/wife, a
case has been registered by the 1st respondent police in C.C.No.7 of 2020 for the
offences under sections 498-A, 324, 506(11) IPC along with section 4 of
TNPWH Act. After investigation, final report was filed. The records would
further reveal that the petitioner/accused had filed a petition before the trial court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
in CMP.No.17398 of 2023 to discharge him from the criminal proceedings. The
learned Judge, after considering the rival submissions, found that there is no
allegation in support of the charge for the offence under section 324, 506(ii) IPC
besides section 4 of TNPHW Act, but found primafacie material to proceed
against the accused under section 498A IPC and thereby partly allowed the
petition and took cognizance against the petitioner/accused under section 498A
IPC. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge, for his satisfaction, recorded
as follows;
'It has been carefully referred by this court. In the
case in hand, the sons of the accused, they had elaborately
given their statement before the investigation officer
substantiating the complainant's statement and the
complaint. On plain reading of the statement adduced
before the investigation officer itself would reveal that there
is a prima facie case is made out as against the accused. It
has to be testified through the testimony of the evidence
before the court of law. In the pre-trial stage, this court
would not be come to the conclusion.
10. On perusal of the statement of the victim and other witnesses, the trial
court satisfied to proceed further. Further with regard to decision relied on by
the petitioner in (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582 (State of Andhra Pradesh
vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, it is an appeal against conviction. After letting in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
evidence, the Court searched whether there is a sufficient evidence to convict the
accused for the offence under section 498A IPC, but in this case, no evidence is
analysed by the trial Court. Further, in other two decisions mentioned supra, the
court quashed the proceedings in the absence of any allegation made or found
primafacie case to proceed with the case. But in the instant case, the evidence
has to be recorded. Further, the trial court also satisfied to proceed further.
During the course of trial, witnesses LW1 and LW3 were examined as PW1
and PW2 .
11. Further, in this case, prima facie, there is allegation against the
husband with regard to cruelty and it has to be adjudicated by appreciation of
evidence, after letting in evidence as to whether the husband intentionally done
all the activities stated by the petitioner/wife or not.
(i) State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal reported in
AIR 1992 (604)
(ii) R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC
866;
(iii)Neeharica Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
The Honourable Supreme Court in the above cases, settled the principle
that in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court
would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not, that is the function of the trial Magistrate and ordinarily it would
not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and
content that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the accusation made
against the accused would be sustained.
12. This case does not meet the parameters laid down by the decisions
stated above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, this court is
of the view that it is inappropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage. I find
no merits in this petition. Hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.07.2023
msr
Index: yes/no
Internet:yes/no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W-24, All Women Police Station,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 017.
2. XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
msr
CRL.O.P.NO.25417 OF 2021
&
Crl.M.P.Nos.14086 & 14087 of 2021
17.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25417/2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
