Madras High Court
Ajit Kumar vs State on 4 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 10056 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10056 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.6674 and 6677 of 2025
1.Ajit Kumar
2.Rajkumari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State, rep. by the
Inspector of Police,
W4 -AWPS Kilpauk Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.11 of 2022)
2.Dr.Monica P. Jain ..Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in
C.C.No.44 of 2024 on the file of learned Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Kalyan Jhabakh
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
Crl.O.P.No. 10056 of 2025
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (crl.side).
For R2 : Mrs.Jayanthi K.Shah
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the
proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional
Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent was
engaged to the first accused on 12.01.2020 at the Taj Club Houes,
Chennai and married him on 15.01.2020 at the Ramoji Film City,
Hyderabad. The entire wedding expenses were borne by her. After
marriage, she was made to stay at her in-laws' home in Chennai under the
pretext of COVID-19 restrictions, allegedly to delay her travel to the U.S.
Eventually, she traveled to the U.S. with the petitioners' son, leaving her
jewelry and personal belongings with the third accused namely, the
second petitioner herein. The second respondent alleged that she was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
subjected to repeated dowry harassment and defamation by the
petitioners. Despite multiple requests, her belongings were not returned.
On 29.08.2022, she was allegedly threatened and driven out of her
matrimonial home. Following these events, she decided to end the
marriage and filed a complaint before the first respondent. The first
respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.11 of 2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A) and 294(b) of IPC. Subsequently, the
first respondent filed a final report before the learned Additional Mahila
Court, Egmore, Chennai and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.44 of 2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the
petitioners are merely the in-laws of the second respondent and have
been unnecessarily implicated in the present case. It is contended that
there are absolutely no specific allegations as against the petitioners to
attract the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and
294(b) of IPC. He further submit that the entire jewellery presented
during the marriage has already been returned to the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
That apart, it is pointed out that immediately after the marriage, the first
accused and the second respondent travelled to the United States and
have not resided in the matrimonial home since then. Therefore, the
petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground of abuse of
process of law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would
submit that there are specific allegations and overt acts attributed to the
petitioners, which prima facie disclose the commission of offences under
Sections 498(A) and 294(b) of IPC. It is further submitted that the first
petitioner had allegedly posted morphed photographs of the second
respondent. That apart, on perusal of the statement given by the second
respondent reveals that the first petitioner had attempted to misbehave
with the her. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to relief under
Sections 528 of BNSS, and the proceedings ought not to be quashed at
this stage.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
Court.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of
the materials placed before this Court including the statement of the
second respondent, this Court is of the view that the allegations against
the petitioners are not vague or general in nature, and there appears to be
specific averments that require investigation and trial. The scope of
interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ 528 of BNSS is limited and is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution. At this stage, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the proceedings initiated as against the
petitioners, as the same involves disputed questions of fact, which are
best left for adjudication during the course of trial.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in
2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing
with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the
High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161
of Cr.P.C.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi
Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, 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 consititue certain offences
complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and
whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused
will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would
arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2024 on the file of learned
Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty
to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispense
with the personal appearance of the second petitioner before the Trial
Court. The second petitioner shall be permitted to be represented by a
counsel subject to filing an appropriate application. It is made clear that
the second petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of
BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. Further, the Trial Court is
directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.04.2025
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
To
1. The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police,
W4 -AWPS Kilpauk Police Station,
Chennai.
3. Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
shk
Crl.O.P.No.10056 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.6674 and 6677 of 2025
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:21 pm )
