Madras High Court
B.Harikrishnan vs State Represented By on 24 November, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.277 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.277 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.104 and 105 of 2022
B.Harikrishnan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
G3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010.
2. Dimpee Bhatia ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records and quash the C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of
the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.R.S.Mangala Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.277 of 2022
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel
for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had acquaintance with
the second respondent while he is training in Gym. He fell in love with the
second respondent. However, the second respondent is aged more than the first
accused and as such, she refused his proposal. Even then, the petitioner used to
follow the second respondent and had given torture. He also snatched her
mobile phone and downloaded her personal photographs and videographs.
Thereafter, he morphed the photographs and videographs and threatened her to
love him otherwise, he will post the photographs and videographs in the social
media. He also threatened the victim with dire consequences and abused her
with filthy language. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.131 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 354A, 354D, 323 and
506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed
final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.18 of 2021, on
the file of the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,
Chennai.
5. The petitioner raised grounds that for the very same set of allegations,
the sister of the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Inspector of
Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station. Therefore, the present proceedings
cannot be sustained.
6. A perusal of records revealed that there is only one complaint and after
completion of investigation, final report has been filed and the same has been
taken cognizance by the Trial Court. A perusal of the charge sheet revealed that
there are serious allegations made as against the petitioner and the petitioner
had committed very serious offence as against a woman. Therefore, there are
averments to bring the charges to home.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in
the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is
concerned, we are of the view that the High Court
while hearing the application under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the
statement of the witnesses and record a finding
that there were inconsistencies in their statements
and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made
out against respondent No.2. In our view, this
could be done only in the trial while deciding the
issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court
while deciding the appeal arising out of the final
order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section
482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we
allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order
and restore the aforementioned complaint case to
its original file for being proceeded with on merits
in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing the very same
issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central
Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, as follows:
“19. After perusing the impugned order and on
hearing the submissions made by the learned senior
counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the
impugned order passed by the High Court is not
sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on
several disputed facts and allowed the petition.
Defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact
that the High Court, in this case, went into the most
minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the
respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High
Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the
High Court at this stage, when the matter has been
taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is
completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order
dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to
any authority for the proposition that while invoking
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a
complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark
upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence
available. All that the Court should see is as to
whether there are allegations in the complaint which
form the basis for the ingredients that constitute
certain offences complained of. The Court may also
be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied
with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations
contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.
..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the
appellant would show that the appellant had
incorporated the ingredients necessary for
prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged.
The question whether the appellant will be able to
prove the allegations in a manner known to law
would arise only at a later stage...................."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the
points raised by the petitioners are mixed question of facts and it cannot be
considered in a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The provisions of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can
be invoked only to meet out the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of
process of law.
11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and this petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.11.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mn
To
1. The Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
G3, Kilpauk Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010.
3. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court.
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
