Jaganathan v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.1595 of 2023

1. Jaganath

2. Anjalai ... Petitioners Vs.

1. State The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu, Cr.No.16 of 2021

2. Moahana ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.747 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondents For R1 : Ms. J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.747 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.16 of 2021, as against this petitioners. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife and it is alleged that the petitioners harassed the second respondent by demanding dowry. Hence the complaint. 3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.747 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and so far the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses out of the 10 witnesses.

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 second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.747 of 2022 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioners filed the present petition. 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 inconsistent statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 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 Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

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 stage. 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 discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.747 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 10.03.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order rts

To

1. The Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chengalpattu.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts and Crl.M.P.No.1595 of 2023 10.03.2025