Gnanaselvam vs The Superintendent Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 4753 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4753 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2024

Madras High Court

Gnanaselvam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 March, 2024

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8200 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED: 01.03.2024

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8200 of 2022 and
                                       Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.5535 and 5536 of 2022

                     Gnanaselvam                                    ... Petitioner/Accused No.4

                                                             Vs.
                     1.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Tenkasi, Tenkasi District

                     2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Tenkasi
                       (Crime No.7 of 2024)

                     3.Vasugi Devi                                           ...Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.102 of 2021 , on the file of the
                     Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and quash the same insofar as the
                     petitioner/accused is concerned.
                                     For petitioner             : Mr.D.Gnanasekaran
                                     For R-1 &R2                 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
                                                                  Government Advocate
                                                                  (Criminal Side)
                                     For R-3                   : No Appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                           Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8200 of 2022



                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.

102 of 2021, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Tenkasi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the de-

facto complainant and the first accused took place on 23.09.2015 and

they have blessed with a female child out of the wedlock. However,

since the marriage ran into rough weather, the de-facto complainant said

to have preferred a complaint against the in-laws for offences under

Sections 147, 294(b), 498(A) and 506(I) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW

Act, 2002 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be

filed in CC No.102/2021 before the trial court, for quashing which, the

petitioner/A4 is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though

a complaint has been preferred by the de-facto complainant against her

in-laws, the petitioner is no way connected with the said offence and that

the petitioner was wrongly shown as uncle of the first accused. It is

submitted that when the petitioner is no way related to the family of the

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

accused, adding him in the complaint is not sustainable and hence, prays

for interference.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that

there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the

petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be

quashed and the charges against the petitioner have to be gone into only

at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the

case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice

would be caused to the petitioner, if he is subjected to due trial as

sufficient opportunity would be given to him to put forth his defence.

The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the charges framed against him

as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the subject

matter of criminal trial pending against him. Useful reference in this

regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426) wherein, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held as under :

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which we have extracted illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in

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

support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

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

6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or

scope to quash C.C.No.102 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of

merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions

are dismissed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that this Court may consider dispensing with the personal

appearance of the petitioner before the court below. Taking into

consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is

dispensed with except for his appearance for the purpose of receiving the

copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning