Madras High Court
Renukadevi vs State Rep. By on 17 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.7737 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.7737 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.5008 of 2025
1. Renukadevi
2. Sulochanna
3. Srikanth ... Petitioners
Versus
1.State Rep. By,
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Gudiyatham Police Station,
Vellore District..
(Crime No.21 of 2024)
2. Saranya ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relatig to the First
Information Report registered in Crime No21 of 2024 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. S. Silambuselvan
For Respondents : Mr. A. Gopinath, (for R1)
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.21 of
2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 85,
296(b) and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC) 1860, and Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/second
respondent lodged a complaint on 02.07.2024 stating that after her first
husband's death, she married one Mr.Shivashankar and had a two-year old
daughter. The first petitioner is the mother of the said Mr. Shivashankar. The
third petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The allegation is that at
the instigation of the second and third petitioners, the first petitioner harrassed
the second respondent, questioning her about the jewellery givn in her marriage.
The second respondent/defacto complainant pointed out that a similar complaint
was filed before the first respondent in the year 2022 – 2023, which was later
compromised. However, on 30.06.2024, the first petitioner allegedly abused the
defacto complainant using filthy language regarding the jewelry issue.
Furthermore, on 01.07.2024 at around 07:30 A.M., while the defacto
complainant was buying milk, the first petitioner allegedly assaulted her with
her hands and scolded her in abusive language, demanding jewellery. Hence,
the present complaint was lodged by he defacto complainant on 02.07.2024 as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
against these petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the
first petitioner made representations before the RDO on various dates
11.08.2023, 11.10.2023 and 13.10.2023. Based on the complaint, an elaborate
inquiry was conducted by the Investigation Officer, Gudiyatham, and orders
were passed on 20.10.2023. Pursuant to the RDO's order, all the money and
jewels were returned to the first petitioner and also directed the defacto
complainant and her husband, to allow the first petitioner to reside in their
house, which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the first
petitioner had lodged a complaint against the second respondent/defacto
complainant and her husband, on the ground that they were harassing the first
petitioner, which was registered in Crime No.666 of 2023 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of the IPC., and the same is pending on the file
of the Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham. Thereafter, the second
respondent/defacto complainant had lodged the present First Information Report
in Crime No.21 of 2024. Further, he submitted that it is evident from the above
that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent
police registered the said case in Crime No.21 of 2024, for the offences under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
Sections 85, 296(b) and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC) 1860, and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, as
against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for
the first respondent submitted that the investigation is almost completed and the
respondent police have only to file a final report in this case.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific
allegations as against these petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be
investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not
contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in its threshold. This Court finds that
the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such
this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery
has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in the Code.
7. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
proceedings, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal
Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of
2019 dated 12.02.2019) held that the learned Magistrate while taking
cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the
view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been
made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not
required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the
complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out
whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the
complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive,
the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment.
Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be
done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or
acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the
allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to
interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on
behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only
on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made
out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the
judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315, in the case of M/s.Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-
“23. ....................
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
..............
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the
court should not go into the merits of the allegations
in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
.............
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR; .......”
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash
the First Information Report. However, considering the crime is of the year
2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime
No.21 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of 12 weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
filed.
10. With the above observations and direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
closed.
17.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non-Speaking order
Neutral Case Citation: Yes/No
klt
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Gudiyatham Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
klt
and
17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 11:27:30 am )
