Madras High Court
Selvam vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 26 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :26.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
1.Selvam
2.Kandasmay (Kannan)
3.Shanmugalakshmi
4.Muthulakshmi
5.Lakshmanan (Balaji)
6.Selvalakshmi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6
Vs.
1.State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Police Station,
Cr.No.610 of 2020,
Tuticorin District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Selvi ... 2nd respondent/Defacto
complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the
proceedings of the FIR in Crime No.610 of 2020, on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Tuticorin District.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karthirvelu
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Prabhu
For R.1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.V.Malaiyendran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
First Information Report in Crime No.610 of 2020, on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Tuticorin District.
2. The first petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto
complainant and other petitioners are also the in-laws of the defacto
complainant. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent /
defacto complainant, the first respondent has registered a case in Cr.No.
610 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 323, 355,
498(A), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
3. According to the prosecution, on 20.12.2020 at about 08.00
am., when she was in the house, all the accused entered in to the house
and the first accused abused her by using obscene words and threatened
her and the third accused assaulted her with broomstick and thereafter,
she went to hospital and taking treatment at that time she has given a
complaint. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered against all
the accused. In the complaint, it is stated that all the petitioners
demanded jewels and also demanded to transfer the house in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
the defacto complainant husband. Initially, she has given a complaint to
the Superintendent of Police and the same has been compromised.
Thereafter this occurrence was happened on 22.12.2020 and thereby the
present complaint was lodged. In fact these petitioners have not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and false complaint was
lodged as against these petitioners who are all in-laws of the second
respondent and the same is abuse of process of law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the second respondent is the daughter-in-law of the first
petitioner and other petitioners are in-laws of the second respondent.
Already matrimonial dispute is pending between the parties. In order to
rope the petitioners, the second respondent has lodged the complaint.
Even as per the FIR, no offence are made out against these petitioners.
The occurrence took place on 20.12.2020 at 08.00 a.m., but the matter
has been reported to the respondent police on the very same day at 14.00
hours. All the petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant / second
respondent. The accused Nos.1,3 & 6 are the advocates. The allegations
against the petitioners are vague and omnibus allegations. Even as per
the FIR, no offence is made out and only in order to harass the
petitioners, she has given a complaint and it is liable to be quashed. In
support of the said contention, the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners relied on the judgment in Chandralekha and others vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 Supreme
Court Cases 374.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
would contend that the accused Nos.1 & 3 have abused the defacto
complaint with obscene words and assaulted the defacto complainant and
there is a specific overt act as against them. As per the FIR, offences are
made out against the petitioners and the investigation is under
preliminary stage. At this stage, FIR cannot be quashed and the matter
requires investigation. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for
the first respondent contended that due to matrimonial dispute between
the parties, the second respondent has given a complaint before the first
respondent and based on the complaint, the first respondent police has
registered the case in Cr.No.610 of 2020 for the offences under Sections
448, 294(b), 323, 355, 498(A), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Now, the case is under
investigation. There are serious allegations as against the petitioners
and requires elaborate investigation.
7. This Court heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
8. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent is none
other than the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner and all other
petitioners are in-laws of the second respondent. There is a matrimonial
dispute pending between the second respondent and her husband. Even
on perusal of FIR, it reveals that there is matrimonial dispute and the
second respondent has made an allegations as against the petitioners,
who are the in-laws of the second respondent, except her husband and it
shows the intention of the second respondent to rope all the petitioners
as accused in the criminal case. Further, the allegations are vague and
omnibus allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the judgment in Chandralekha and others vs. State of Rajasthan
and another reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 374 and
the relevant paragraph-9 is extracted hereunder:-
“9. We must, at the outset, state that the High
Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we
confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the
FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by
Respondent 2 insofar as it relates to Appellants 1,2 and 3
deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely
general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of
the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the
marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
is not clear whether Appellants 1,2 and 3 were residing with
them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9.7.2002
and Respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15.2.2003
I.e., within a period of seven months. Thereafter,
Respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the
appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present
FIR was lodged making extremely vague and general
allegations against Appellants 1,2 and 3. it is important to
remember that Appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our
opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises
grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by
Respondent 2 against Appellants 1,2 and 3, which are, in
any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by
making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent 2
has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband.
We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against Appellants 1,2 and 3 pursuant
to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. In the interest
of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar
as it relates to Appellants 1,2 and 3.”
9. On a careful perusal of the judgment it is clear that if any
reckless and vague allegations made against the in-laws to rope them
into a criminal case then this Court can quash the FIR since it is abuse of
process of law.
10. In the case on hand also, the allegations are vague and
omnibus. Further, the accused Nos.1, 3 & 6 are the advocates and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
order to rope them in this case, the second respondent stated some
allegations as against the petitioners. It shows the intention of the
second respondent to rope them in this case. Therefore, pending FIR is
abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. There is no
specific allegations as against these petitioners and the allegations are
vague, bald and general and omnibus allegations and for these
allegations no warrant of prosecution. Further the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and Sonam and Ors.vs. State
of Bihar and Ors in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022, wherein it is
held as follows:
“19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, 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”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
11. In view of the above discussion and the as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court that for general and omnibus allegations these
petitioners need not face the trial, thereby, the First Information Report
is liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and
the First Information Report in Crime No.610 of 2020 on the file of the
first respondent is hereby quashed in so far as the petitioners are
concerned.
26.09.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Police Station,
Tuticorin 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.66 of 2021
P.DHANABAL, J.
am
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.66 of 2021
26.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
