Madras High Court

Lakshmanan vs The State Rep By on 30 November, 2023

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                     Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 30.11.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                         Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022 and
                                          Crl.MP.Nos.12488 & 15482 of 2022

                Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022

                1.Lakshmanan
                2.L.Peachiammal
                3.L.Muthulakshmi                                              ... Petitioners

                                                            Vs.
                1.The State rep by,
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  W-17, All Women Police Station,
                  Peravallur,
                  Chennai 600 082
                2.S.Saraswathi                                                ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to

                call for the records in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila

                Court, Egmore and to quash the same.


                                   For Petitioners          : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam

                                   For Respondents
                                         For R1              : Mr.A.Gopinath,
                                                               Government Advocate(Crl.side)


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 10
                                                                   Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

                                        For R2            : Mr.G.Thyagarajan

                Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022

                Balasenthilmurugan                                                ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.
                1.The State rep by,
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  W-17, All Women Police Station,
                  Peravallur,
                  Chennai 600 082
                2.S.Saraswathi                                              ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to

                call for the records in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila

                Court, Egmore and to quash the same.


                                  For Petitioners         : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam

                                  For Respondents
                                        For R1            : Mr.A.Gopinath,
                                                            Government Advocate(Crl.side)

                                        For R2            : Mr.G.Thyagarajan

                                                    COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the

proceedings in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court,

Egmore thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498(A),

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

506(i) of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC as against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent married

the first accused on 24.06.2020. During the marriage, he was presented jewels

and other articles. The second respondent and the first accused had set up a

separate house and was living separately. However, on the ill advice of the

in-laws, the first accused demanded huge dowry and started giving torture and

harassment. The in-laws also phoned to her and threatened with dire

consequences. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the first

respondent registered FIR in crime No.10 of 2021 for the offence under

Sections 498A, 406 & 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final

report was filed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) of IPC r/w

Section 34 of IPC. There are totally four accused, in which the petitioners in

Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022 are arrayed as A2 and A4 and the petitioner in

Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022 is arrayed as the first accused.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

4. On perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, it becomes

pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at

preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws,

by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in

recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased

significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the

institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased

tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle

personal scores against the husband's relatives. Most of these complaints are

filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations

and it is also filed with oblique motive.

5. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Crl.A.No.195 of 2022 in the case

of Kahkashan Kausar @ Onam & others Vs. State of Bihar & others,

wherein it is held as follows:

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

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.

6. On reading of the FIR also, this Court finds that there is no

specific overt act as against the in-laws of the second respondent. Therefore,

initiation of prosecution in the absence of specific allegations would result in

abuse of process of law. Therefore, in the absence of the specific overt act as

against the in-laws, if they are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial,

i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the

relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. Therefore,

the entire proceedings cannot be sustained as against accused 2 to 4 as the

entire allegations are only as against the first accused. Further, the allegations

as against A2 and A4 are bald and vague and no specific allegations.

Therefore, the entire proceedings in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the

Additional Mahila Court, Egmore is liable to be quashed as against A2 and A4.

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

7. Insofar as the first accused is concerned, there are specific

allegations as against him to attract the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i)

of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. 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., wherein it is held 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

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

merits in accordance with law.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very

same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central

Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, held 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

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”

9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order

dated 02.12.2019 passed 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

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

Crl.OP.Nos.18886 & 24636 of 2022

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...................."

10. In view of the above discussion, the entire proceedings in

CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore is

quashed as against A2 and A4 and the criminal original petition in

Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022 is allowed. Insofar as the first accused is concerned,

this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings and the criminal

original petition in Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022 is dismissed. The trial Court is

directed to complete the trial as against the first accused within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30.11.2023

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

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