M.Sudhir v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.O.P.No.28820 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 M.Sudhir

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State represented by:

The Sub Inspector of Police, R.9, Valasarawakkam Police Station, Chennai - 600 087.

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with the C.C.No.211 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This criminal original petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.211 of 2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee and quash the same. 2.Brief case of the Petitioner/accused:

The facts of the case is that on 3.9.2010 the petitioner have married the defacto complainant and the marriage certificate issued by the Sub Registrar of the marriages, vide document No. 1301 of 2010 . On 6.11.2010 the mother of the defecto complainant, has come to the petitioner matrimonial home at Villivakkam and she convinced and called the petitioner's wife to stay with her for few days. The petitioner allowed his wife to honour the words of her mother. After a couple of days the petitioner made calls repeatedly to her phone, but there was no proper response from her side and their men threatened the petitioner to leave his wife once for all, otherwise he has to face dire consequences. The petitioner filed an Habeas Corpus petition in HCP No. 2191 of 2010 before this Court and the same was admitted on 24.11.2011. The petitioner regularly appeared before the Hon'ble Division Bench anxiously to see his wife in all the hearings from 10.30 am to 1.30 pm. The defacto

complainant in order to avoid the appearance before this Court with the inducement and wrong advice, fabricated a criminal complaint on 21.12.2010, as if the petitioner have committed an alleged offences. The respondent police in collusion with the defacto complainant have gone to an extent of registering an FIR by suppressing the knowledge of Court's notice. 3.In the meantime the respondent police, filed the final report under sections 294(b), 341 and 323 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamalle and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issue summons to the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.211 of 2011. Aggrieved over the same, this quash petition is filed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the fabricated complaint filed only on 19.1.2011, but it was alleged that the occurrence, said to have been occurred as "on the 21st day December 2010.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the alleged complaint dated 21.12.2010, against the petitioner after the period of 29 days, is only to avoid appearance before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.2191 of 2010.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the final report does not disclose any one of the ingredients in these sections 294(b), 341 and 323 of IPC and the learned Magistrate erred in framing charge.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent opposed the contentions of the quash petition and sought for its dismissal.

8.I heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

9.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.2191 of 2010 issued notice to the respondents and the petitioner was appearing in the Court to see his wife. After filing of H.C.P., the defacto complainant filed the complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in Cr.No.79 of 2011 dated 19.1.2011 and final report was filed on 19.8.2011. 10.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court disposed the H.C.P.No.2191 of 2010 on 10.3.2011, since the defecto complainant alleged that she is not willing to live with the petitioner /accused on account of his bad character. 11.It is seen from the records that, both the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant loved each other without the knowledge of their parents and marriage was

performed and registered on 3.9.2010. The defacto complainant also preferred separate complaint for police protection of her matrimonial life with the petitioner/accused on 3.11.2010 to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and to take action against her mother and others. Subsequently the defacto complainant, wife of the petitioner/accused changed her mind on the inducement of her parents and preferred a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the Inspector of Police, Valsaravakkam dated 19.1.2011 alleging that the petitioner/accused threatened and assaulted her. For this a case was registered in crime number 79 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and final report was filed. 12.

What is happening today is that the lovers or young partners choose their life without the knowledge of their parents and if they found their life is not well, then they would again knock the doors of their parents, ultimately one person is punished for the wrong committed by both and sometimes the issues between the couples resulted in FIR, who have the money and muscle power in the society. This is happening all over the society irrespective of caste and religion. 13.In this case on hand, the aforesaid attitude of one of the parties, resulted in a FIR. What triggering in my mind is that the marriage between the lovers was resulted in registering the same to the competent officer and then habeas corpus was filed by the petitioner/accused for protection of his wife, the defacto complainant herein.

14.The reason would be that the parents acted in safeguarding the rights of their lovable ones which normally would occur in every family. But the sin here is that the petitioner/accused was arrayed as an accused in the FIR filed by his wife.

15.I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the registration of the FIR by the respondent police for the offence mentioned in the complaint cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the ingredients have not made out. The respondent police high handedly registered the false FIR and final report against the petitioner/accused for the reasons best known to them. The act of the respondent police is highly despicable. 16.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in connection with C.C.No.211 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, R9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai - 600087.

Crl.O.P.No.28820 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 CNR(CO) rrs 14/03/2019