Madras High Court
Rekha vs Inspector Of Police on 10 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.3515 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3515 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2303 & 2304 of 2025
Rekha ... Petitioner
Vs.
Inspector of Police,
J-5, Shastri Nagar Police Station,
1st Avenue, Custom Colony,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and
quash the proceeding laid down in C.C.No.2114 of 2024 on the file of
the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and allow the Criminal
Original Petition as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.3515 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.2114 of 2024 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, as against the petitioner, thereby taken cognizance for the
offences under Sections 294(b) & 323 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the
defacto complainant are friends and when the defacto complainant went
the petitioner's house, it is alleged that the petitioner scolded the defacto
complainant with filthy language and also threatened her with dire
consequences. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2023 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, as against the
petitioner. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final
report, the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.2114 of 2024 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for the
offences under Sections 294(b) & 323 of IPC. Hence he prayed to quash
the same.
4. On instruction, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the trial has
been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this
case.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the defacto
complainant, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2023
for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4
of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After
completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.2114 of 2024 by the trial
Court and it is pending. Now the trial has been commenced and after
commencement of trial, it cannot be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 180
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. Fruther, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment
dated 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. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2114 of 2024 on the file of the IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, The petitioner is at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the facts and
circumstances, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed
with and she shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate
application. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at
the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court
viz., the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is directed to
complete the trial in C.C.No.2114 of 2024, within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
closed.
10.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet.
2. The Inspector of Police,
J-5, Shastri Nagar Police Station,
1st Avenue, Custom Colony,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2303 & 2304 of 2025
10.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
