Madras High Court
N.Janaki vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 January, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.01.2025
Pronounced on : 08.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P(MD)No.16823 of 2022
and
C.R.P(MD)No.1167 of 2023
and
Crl.O.P(MD)No.SR. 48587 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.11261 and 11263 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5631 and 5632 of 2023
For Crl.O.P(MD)No.16823 of 2022
1. N.Janaki
2. Kanagalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srirangam,
Trichy City, Trichy.
Crime No.5 of 2020.
2. Nivedita ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Sections 439
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned Final Report in CC.No.200 of 2022 on the file of the
Learned Additional Mahila Court,Trichy in Cr.No.5 of 2020 dt.3.3.2020 on
the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates,
For R1 :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan
For C.R.P(MD)No.1167 of 2023
1. N. Janaki
2. Kanagalakshmi
3. Ramamoorthi ... Petitioners
Vs
Nivedita ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to struck of pertaining Impugned proceedings filed by the
Respondent in D.V.C. No. 37 of 2022 on the file of Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
For M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates,
For Respondent : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy
For Crl.O.P(MD)No.SR 48587 of 2023
Nivedita ... Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srirangam,
Trichy City, Trichy.
Crime No.5 of 2020. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Sections 439
(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent police to
retrieve the Whatsapp messages in between the accused persons in phone
numbers(1) 9597917915-A1 (2( 9994223890-A2 and (3)
"+14793201381" (U.S. number) and 9994449272 (India)-A3, which are
relevant to the offences in Cr.No.5 of 2020, now pending in c.C.No.200 of
2022 as the petitioner had pointed out by her representations dated
07.07.2020 and 22.07.020, 13.12.2022, 18.02.2023 and 10.08.2023 and
produce the same as report on further investigation in the said C.C.No.200
of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila
Court Trichy in compliance with this Court order dated 15.02.2022 passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8752 of 2020 within a time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan
For Respondent :Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in these cases are common and hence they are
taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2.The criminal original petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16823 of 2022
has been filed by A2 and A3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.
200 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy. The same
petitioners along with another person have challenged the proceedings in
D.V.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Tirunelveli, initiated under the Domestic Violence Act.
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2013, marriage was
solemnized between A1 and the defacto complainant. It is alleged that 80
sovereigns of gold and house hold articles were given to the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complainant. On 18.03.2016, the defacto complainant delivered a boy baby.
The defacto complainant has alleged cruelty meted out by A1 and insofar as
A2 and A3, it is alleged that they were holding back the jewels and also
retained the insurance amount after the demise of A1 and they were also
instigating A1. The first petitioner (A2) is the mother of A1 and the second
petitioner (A3) is the sister of A1. A1 died during the pendency of this case
due to kidney failure and the criminal case is now pending only as against
A2 and A3. Insofar as the proceedings initiated under the Domestic
Violence Act, it has been filed against the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and
the husband of the sister-in-law seeking for payment of maintenance, to
provide for rent and to meet out the educational expenses of the child and to
return back the jewellery and other important documents and also for
compensation.
4.The final report has been filed against the accused persons for
the offence under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(1) of IPC. The quash
petition was filed even when the FIR was registered in Crime No.5 of 2020
and an interim order was also passed by this Court. However, the
investigation was completed and final report was filed and it was taken on
file in C.C.No.200 of 2022 by the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy. Since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the final report was filed when the interim order was in force, a contempt
petition in Cont P(MD)No.636 of 2022 was filed before this Court and this
Court was pleased to close the contempt petition by order dated 08.08.2022.
While passing this order, this Court took into consideration the fact that A2
had paid a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- to the defacto complainant and also
returned back the gold jewelleries.
5.There is no bar in dealing with the quash petition even if the
final report has been filed and this Court can always see if the offence has
been made out and whether the proceedings requires the interference of this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
7.The specific allegations in the final report was mainly against
A1. It is alleged that A1 was working in a shipping company and right from
the year 2015, there was some misunderstanding between A1 and the
defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was also financially helping
A1 for his higher studies and for repaying loan amount. That apart, A1
suffered from kidney failure and A2 donated one of her kidney and for this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
operation also the defacto complainant helped financially. Even after the
operation, it is alleged that A1 and the defacto complainant were not in good
terms. Unfortunately, A1 died due to kidney failure on 22.06.2021. The
allegations against A2 and A3 is that they refused to repay back the amount
that was given by the defacto complainant towards various expenses and
have also refused to return back the jewellery to the defacto complainant.
That apart, allegations have also been made against A2 and A3 to the effect
that they only instigated A1 and they did not allow the defacto complainant
to live peacefully with A1.
8.It must be borne in mind that during the pendency of the
proceedings, substantial amount was settled in favour of the defacto
complainant and out of 72 sovereigns which was claimed by the defacto
complainant, 50 sovereigns were returned back to the defacto complainant.
Hence the focus of the case and the main ground that was urged on the side
of the defacto complainant is now with regard to the alleged cruelty
committed by them and the alleged instigation of A1 to commit cruelty
against the defacto complainant.
9.It is an admitted case that A3 was living in United States. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defacto complainant therefore has taken a stand that various whatsapp
messages and videos were circulated which will show that A2 and A3 were
repeatedly instigating A1. For that purpose, Crl.O.P(MD)No.SR 48587 of
2023 has been filed by the defacto complainant to retrieve the whatsapp
messages by the police in order to establish the involvement of A2 and A3.
10.The death of A1 and the subsequent developments whereby
money and the jewels were handed over to the defacto complainant, has
substantially watered down the case. It is quite far fetched to allege that A3
was sitting in United States and instigating A1. It is also borne out by the
records that A1 was suffering from kidney failure from 2016 onwards and
even as per the final report, it was A2, who donated one of her kidney in the
year 2018. Hence the family was struggling due to the health condition of
A1. Unfortunately, he died on 22.06.2021. Hence to conduct a case at this
stage will be akin to flogging a dead horse.
11.This Court must bear in mind the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2024
SCC Online SC 759 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder
"31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case
like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by
the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband
and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the
FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial
justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of
the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the
submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically
then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power
by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose.
We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on
account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband
and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is
to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First
Information Report. Many times the services of professionals
are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a
legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any
loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does
not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands
in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are
allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet
papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the
allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like
the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why
the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report
against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the
end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so,
because allegations have been levelled not only against the
Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister.
If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file
chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even
the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was
nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute.
32. Many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of
salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to
save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family
members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on
trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife,
her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the
panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the
Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation
between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation
of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting
one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain
bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty
quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should
not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what
is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must
appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of
view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular
case, always keeping in view the physical and mental
conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A
very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be
disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In
matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The
spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not
think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an
end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays
a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is
concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that
instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of
criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for
each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and
harassment by the husband and his family members towards the
wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary.
However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a
measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of
cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be
utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so
that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her
parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife
complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the
IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete
without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not
amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between
spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not
amount to cruelty.
...
37. Before we close the matter, we would like to invite
the attention of the Legislature to the observations made by this
Court almost 14 years ago in Preeti Gupta (supra) as referred
to in para 26 of this judgment. We once again reproduce paras
34 and 35 respectively as under:
“34. Before parting with this case, we
would like to observe that a serious relook of the
entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is
also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in
a large number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a very large number
of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense
sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal
in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep
scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a
large number of these complaints have not only
flooded the courts but also have led to enormous
social unrest affecting peace, harmony and
happiness of the society. It is high time that the
legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in
the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature
to take into consideration the informed public
opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration
and make necessary changes in the relevant
provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a
copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to
the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who
may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law
and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger
interest of the society.”
38. In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
which is to come into force with effect from 1st July, 2024 so as
to ascertain whether the Legislature has seriously looked into
the suggestions of this Court as made in Preeti Gupta (supra).
Sections 85 and 86 respectively are reproduced herein below:
“Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.
85. Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Cruelty defined.
86. For the purposes of section 85,
“cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.” "
12.As held by the Apex Court, the facts of the present case also
clearly show that the normal bickerings in a family life has been blown out
of proportions and the defacto complainant is trying to make a mountain out
of a molehill.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.Useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and
another reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3682 and the relevant portions are
extracted hereunder:
"31. Further, this Court inPreeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care
and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was
initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e.,
appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand
falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted
in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case,
erred in not exercising the powers available to it under
Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the
Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution
against the appellants."
14.The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the Courts must be
extremely careful and cautious while dealing with the matrimonial cases and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
particularly when the complaint is made against the relatives. There is
always a tendency to rope in the relatives to settle scores in a matrimonial
dispute.
15.Continuation of the criminal proceedings as against A2 and A3
will only result in abuse of process of law since very vague allegations have
been made against them which does not constitute any offence and this
Court also takes into consideration the subsequent developments which
have been recorded supra. Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16.Insofar as the proceedings initiated under the Domestic
Violence Act, there is no scope for the defacto complainant to claim
maintenance from the mother-in-law, who is already aged about 69 years.
Insofar as others are concerned, they are not liable to pay any maintenance
to the defacto complainant. The reasoning that has been given in the quash
petition will equally apply to the domestic violence case also. In fact, the
defacto complainant has also roped in the husband of the sister-in-law in the
domestic violence proceedings. The said proceedings is also an abuse of
process of law which requires the interference of this Court under Article
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
227 of the Constitution of India.
17.In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings in
C.C.NO.200 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, is
hereby quashed and accordingly, the criminal original petition in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.16823 of 2022 is allowed. The proceedings in D.V.C.No.
37 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, is
hereby quashed and accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed.
18.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.In the light of orders passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16823 of 2022
and C.R.P(MD)No.1167 of 2023, the criminal original petition in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.SR 48587 of 2023 is closed.
08.01.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Mahila Court,
Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Srirangam,
Trichy City, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
copy to
The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
LR
and
and
Crl.O.P(MD)No.SR. 48587 of 2023
08.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
