Madras High Court
B.Prabhu vs State By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 6449 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6449 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.4116 of 2025
1.B.Prabhu
2.B.Pushpa ... Petitioners
Vs
1.State By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (East)
Coimbatore.
(Crime No.41 of 2022)
2.M.Nishanthini ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records
pertaining to C.C.No.543 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
Crl.O.P.No. 6449 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No. 543 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner married
the second respondent on 01.09.2019. During their marriage, the family
members of the second respondent presented 10 sovereigns of jewelry
and household articles as dowry. However, even after the marriage, the
accused allegedly threatened the second respondent with dire
consequences, demanded a huge dowry, scolded her using filthy
language, and physically assaulted her. As a result, the second
respondent sustained injuries and sought medical treatment. Based on a
complaint lodged by the second respondent, an FIR was registered by the
first respondent in Crime No. 41 of 2022 for offences under Sections
498(A), 323, 506(i), and 294(b) of IPC. After completion of the
investigation, a final report was filed, which was taken cognizance by the
Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore and summons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
were issued to the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations made by the second respondent are bald and vague, as no
specific place or date has been mentioned for the alleged incidents. In
fact, the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce on 26.07.2022. The
second respondent lodged the complaint on 30.07.2022, immediately
after the divorce petition had been filed. The first respondent had already
enquired and closed the previous complaint. That apart, the first
respondent, without conducting any preliminary enquiry as directed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, proceeded to register the FIR. Hence, the
final report filed cannot be sustained and the petitioners seek the
quashing of the FIR.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submits that there
is sufficient evidence to proceed with the case. The charges under
Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i), and 294(b) of the IPC are well-founded,
and the investigation has provided adequate proof to support the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
prosecution's case. He request the court to proceed with the matter in
accordance with the law, ensuring that justice is served for the aggrieved
party.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material placed before this
Court.
6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that specific averments have
been made against the petitioners, which prima facie attract the offences
under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i), and 294(b) of IPC. That apart, the
second respondent sustained injuries and sought treatment. There is no
legal bar on filing multiple complaints by the aggrieved party. The
second FIR is not in violation of any provision of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.). Therefore, the aggrieved person can lodge as many
complaints as necessary and ultimately, the concerned jurisdictional
Court can entertain the complaint through a private complaint if
required. Further, though the first respondent filed a petition for divorce
in H.M.O.P. No. 1393 of 2022, it was taken on file by the Family Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
Coimbatore, on the same day and no notice was issued. Hence, the
second respondent lodged the complaint for cruelty, which was based on
the events as alleged to have occurred.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
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
state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioners to quash the final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C. No. 543 of 2024 pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
However, the appearance of the second petitioner alone before the Trial
Court is hereby dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel
after filing appropriate application. However, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
passing judgment.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.
28.03.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (East)
Coimbatore.
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
shk
Crl.O.P.No.6449 of 2025 and
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
