Madras High Court
Hanif Ibrahim Minhalla vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... on 25 September, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7879 and 7881 of 2020
1.Hanif Ibrahim Minhalla
2.Noor Mohamed Meera
3.Sitty Marjan Jahannara
4.Habira Meharaj Minna ...Petitioners
Vs
1.State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karaikudi District.
(In Crime No.2 of 2019)
2.Aabitha Banu ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records and quash the
proceedings pending in C.C.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Karaikudi.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.E.Chelliah Senior Counsel
Mr.C.Sai Fuliah
For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
This petition is filed to quash charge sheet in C.C.No.12 of 2020 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
2.According to the petitioners, the second respondent is wife of the first
petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the first petitioner, the
fourth petitioner is sister of the first petitioner. The second respondent has
given a false complaint against the petitioners. The fourth petitioner is
residing at Sharja, UAE. The second respondent married the first petitioner on
20.12.2015 and thereafter, female child was born to them. Due to difference of
opinion, the second respondent stayed in parental house and then after nine
months, they again re-united. The petitioners 2 and 3 were living on their
home town at Thirupattur. The second respondent were lived at Chennai only
for a period of eight months. The fourth petitioner was married in the year
2014 and she is in abroad. The first petitioner and second respondent lived at
Chennai only for eight months and thereafter, again due to misunderstanding,
the second respondent went to her parental home at Karaikudi and thereafter,
Jamath intervened in this matter and no amicable solution was reached for
reunion.
3.Thereafter, the father of the second respondent on 08.11.2018
approached the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and submitted a
petition to take steps for reunion of his daughter and son-in-law. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
petition was forwarded to All Women Police Station, Karaikudi through CSR
dated 09.11.2018 and the father of the second respondent and the second
respondent participated in the enquiry. On 30.01.2019, All Women Police
Station, Karaikudi concluded petition enquiry stating that since after repeated
counselling given to the parties, the first petitioner refused to continue
matrimonial life with the second respondent. On the receipt of complaint on
30.01.2019, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.2 of 2019 for the
offence under Sections 498A, 406, 506(i) of IPC. Even as per the complaint
dated 30.01.2019 given by the second respondent, the allegations made in the
FIR and charge sheet are vague and omnibus and bald in nature and not
distinct and not attract Sections 498A, 406, 506(i) of IPC.
4.In fact the petition dated 08.11.2018 was given by the father of the
second respondent for reunion and no any allegations made against these
petitioners. While the enquiry is pending, the complaint was given by the
second respondent and registered FIR and specific allegations were not
mentioned in the petition. The FIR and the final report filed by the first
respondent does not disclose any allegation with regard to cruelty and thereby,
Section 498A of IPC not at all attract. There is no averments regarding the
date on which the request for return of jewels was made by the second
respondent and the same was refused by the petitioners. The jewels belonging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
to the second respondent was kept in the bank safety locker under the facility
of joint operation availed by both the first petitioner and the second
respondent. Having two independent keys possessing each key of their own to
access the jewels, the allegations that the jewels taken by the third petitioner,
mother-in-law, there is absolutely no averment either in the complaint, charge
sheet or the statement of the witnesses that the third petitioner mother-in-law
dishonestly misappropriated the jewels or she converted the jewels to her own
use. Even for sake of arguments, mere failure to return the property does not
constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of IPC. The
allegation in respect of criminal intimidation are vague and bald in nature and
not distinct and not specific. Therefore, the charge sheet as against the
petitioners is abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.
5.No counter was filed on the side of the respondents.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that
the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent, the petitioners 2
and 3 are parents of the first petitioner and fourth petitioner is sister of the
first petitioner. The fourth petitioner is not residing in India and she is a
resident of Sharja, UAE. Only to harass the petitioners, this false complaint
has been lodged. In fact due to misunderstanding between the first petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
and the second respondent, the second respondent left from the matrimonial
home and the first petitioner and the second respondent were living at
Chennai and the petitioners 2 and 3 were living at their home at Thirupatthur.
Due to misunderstanding between the first petitioner and the second
respondent, the second respondent left from the matrimonial home and
residing at her parents.
7.The father of the second respondent has given a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police on 08.11.2018 and the same was forwarded to All
Women Police Station, Karaikudi. During the enquiry, the first petitioner was
not in a position to take the second respondent to his home and no scope for
reunion. Immediately on 30.01.2019, the second respondent lodged a
complaint when the said matter was pending enquiry, filed this complaint and
registered this case. Even in this previous complaint given by the father of the
respondent, there is no allegation with respect of demand of dowry and
alleged cruelty caused by the petitioners. The complaint is only for reunion.
The first petitioner categorically stated that he is unable to live with her false
averments. Even according to the complaint, no specific allegations against
the petitioners, the allegations are vague, bald and omnibus allegations. In
order to attract the provisions of Sections 498A of IPC, there is no any
materials to constitute the offence. Even as per FIR, there is no averments in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
the complaint that the second respondent demanded to return back the jewels
and the second respondent refused to return the jewels which were kept in the
safety lock in which the second respondent also have separate key to open the
safety locker. Only to harass the petitioners, this complaint has been lodged.
Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i)Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. In
Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022.
(ii)Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another in
(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667.
9.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent
would contend that based on the complaint given by the second respondent,
the first respondent has registered FIR in Crime No.2 of 2019. Thereafter,
investigated the case and filed final report. Based on final report, the learned
Judicial magistrate has taken cognizance and the same is pending in C.C.No.
12 of 2020. There are prima facie materials available as against this
petitioners. At this stage, the petitioners have to face the trial. Thereby, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
10.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended
that due to matrimonial dispute, the second respondent has given complaint
to the first respondent. All the petitioners caused cruelty on the second
respondent and also refused to return back the jewels of the second
respondent. Further all the petitioners caused criminally intimidation.
Thereby, the second respondent had lodged the complaint before the first
respondent. Based on the first respondent, the first respondent registered a
case for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, the
first respondent thoroughly investigated the case and after investigation,
prima facie materials available as against these petitioners. Thereby, filed final
report. Based on the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
has taken cognizance in C.C.No.12 of 2020. Therefore, at this stage, the
petitioners have to face the trial and thereby, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
11.This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on
records.
12.On perusal of the records, it is observed that there is a family dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
between the first petitioner and second respondent. Already the father of the
second respondent gave a complaint before the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District and the same was forwarded to the All Woman Police
Station, Karaikudi and the same was enquired by the All Woman Police,
Karaikudi. While pending enquiry, this complaint was given by the second
respondent on 30.01.2019 and based on the complaint, the police have
registered FIR in Crime No.2 of 2019 and thereafter, investigated the case and
filed final report and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.12 of 2020.
13.The petitioners contention is that the petitioners have not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR and charge sheet. In the previous complaint
given by the father of the second respondent, the defacto complainant did not
reveal the cruelty caused by the petitioners. Afterthought the second
respondent had given this false complaint only to harass the petitioners.
14.According to the second respondent, the petitioners caused cruelty
and also refused to return the jewels, which are presented during the marriage.
It is admitted fact that already the father of the defacto complainant had given
a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and the same was referred to
All Women Police Station, Karaikudi and All Women Police also enquired the
matter. While pending enquiry, this complaint dated 30.01.2019 was given by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
the second respondent. In the earlier complaint dated 08.11.2018, there is no
whisper about the cruelty and the refusal of return of the jewels of the second
respondent. Further the allegations levelled by the second respondent are not
specific and they are vague, bald, general and omnibus allegations.
15.Further according to petitioners, the fourth petitioner is residing in
abroad and she not at all present in India on the date of occurrence. Further
the second respondent also has included the name of the fourth petitioner also.
The first respondent also without conducting proper investigation included the
name of the fourth respondent as absconding accused in the charge sheet. The
fourth petitioner has produced the copy of the pass port and on perusal of the
same, the fourth petitioner is not present on the date of occurrence and she
was in abroad. While so without conducting proper investigation, the first
respondent has filed charge sheet against the fourth petitioner. Further
allegations made in the FIR is that due to the instigation of the fourth
petitioner, A1 refused to live with her and all the accused abused her and
scolded her and they treated her as servant maid and also threatened to kill
her. These are the allegations and these allegations are vague and bald ones.
16.In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
2022 Livelaw (SC) 141, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.19
held as follows:-
“19.Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the
contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general
allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant
alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her
of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against either of the
appellants herein i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed
any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made
against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the
offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and
can at best be said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However,
as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made
against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.”
17.On careful perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that based on the
general and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution. In the case on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
hand also, the second respondent lodged a complaint as agianst her husband
and in laws with vague, general and bald allegations that too as against the
fourth petitioner who is in aboard on the date of occurrence. Hence, the
aforesaid judgment will squarely applicable to present facts of the case.
18.In view of the above judgment and as discussed supra, this Criminal
Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings as against the petitioners in
C.C.No.12 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi is
hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Mrn
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Karaikudi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
P. DHANABAL,J.
Mrn
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15963 of 2020
25.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
