Madras High Court

Hariharan vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... on 4 October, 2023

                                                                             Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 04.10.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              CRL.O.P.No.21456 of 2019 and
                                                Crl.MP.No.11082 of 2019

                1.Hariharan
                2.Sumathi
                3.V.Nagarajan                                                ... Petitioners/A1 to 3

                                                       Vs.
                1.State rep. By the Inspector of Police,
                  All Women Police Station,
                  Triplicane,
                  Chennai District
                  crime No.2 of 2019
                2.Revathi                                                    ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
                Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the crime No.2 of 2019
                pending on the file of the All Women Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai and to
                quash the same by allowing this criminal original petition.


                                   For Petitioners          : Mr.M.Guruprasad

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


                                                          ORDER

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

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR

registered in crime No.2 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent registered

for the offences under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of IPC.

2. The second respondent/victim lodged complaint alleging that she

used to visit her grand mother's house. The first petitioner stayed at Murugappa

Street and used to follow her and continuously expressed his love affair

towards the victim. Though initially the victim refused his offer, thereafter, she

accepted his love and he promised to marry her. On the pretext of marriage on

14.02.2019, he had physical relationship with the second respondent, that too

on compulsion. In the meanwhile, the parents of the victim lodged complaint

for girl missing. Once again, the victim lodged another complaint dated

17.02.2019 before the W2 All Women Police Station, Anna Salai. While

conducting enquiry, the petitioners demanded huge dowry from the victim for

the marriage. When it was refused by the victim and her family members, the

petitioners threatened her with dire consequences and they also abused her

with caste name. Hence, the first respondent registered the FIR for the offence

under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of IPC.

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

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there

were two earlier complaints before the FIR. The victim is aged about more than

20 years and she knows the consequences of physical relationship. Therefore,

she voluntarily consented for physical relationship with the first petitioner and

no offence is made out under Section 417 of IPC. He further submitted that as

far as the second and third petitioners are concerned, they are parents of the

first accused and they are nothing to do with the offences under Sections 417

or 376 of IPC. That apart, the offence under Section 417 is not at all made out

since in order to attract the said offence, whoever, by deceiving any person,

fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person so deceived to deliver any

property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property,

or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything

which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or

omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,

mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. Therefore, no ingredients are

satisfied with the allegations in the FIR. That apart, the victim girl consented

for physical relationship and as such offence under Section 376 also is not

made out.

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

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

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

5. On perusal of records, revealed that there are three accused in

which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3. The first accused fell in love with

the victim and in the pretext of marriage, on compulsion, he had physical

relationship with the victim. Immediately, the parents of the victim lodged

complaint. However, no FIR was registered. Therefore, the victim was

constrained to file another complaint before the first respondent and the same

has been registered in crime No.2 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 417,

376 and 506(i) of IPC. On reading of FIR, there are specific allegations as

against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 417, 376, 506(i) of

IPC. Though no offence is made out as against the second and third petitioners

under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC, the other offence under Section 506(i) of

IPC is clearly made out. That apart, FIR is not an encyclopedia and it has to be

investigated in depth to unearth the truth. Therefore, FIR cannot be quashed on

its threshold.

6. 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:-

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

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

"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 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.

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

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

......................

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 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."

7. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

Therefore, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial to go into all the charges

levelled against the petitioners. At the stage of FIR, while exercising the powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to conduct investigation or

trial. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigation agency is/are

required to prove the charges. The allegations are required to be investigated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.21456 of 2019

during the investigation and on the basis of the evidence, the investigation

agency could file charge sheet. Therefore, this Court has got very limited

jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is

available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is

required to be tried or not. Further, whether FIR is malicious or not is not