Anandraj v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.OP.No.6967 of 2021 & Crl.MP.No.4613 of 2021 1.Anandraj 2.Gopikumar 3.Devaki ... Petitioners

Versus

1.State represented by Inspector of Police, W-8, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai.

(Crime No.19/2020) 2.Bagyalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.19 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners:

Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For R1 :

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners who are the accused in Crime.No.19 of 2020 of All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have filed this quash petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant had a love marriage at the instance of the police. The defacto complainant was employed as a Manager in the first petitioner's company due to which they developed some relationship and subsequently got married. The second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner. The specific allegation is

that at the instance of the second and third petitioners, the first petitioner used to beat and harass the defacto complainant.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is well settled proposition that FIR is not an encyclopedia. The specific allegations made against the petitioners is that the marriage was love marriage, second and third petitioners were always claiming pride over their community and the defacto complainant was looked down since she belonged to lower community than that of the petitioners, which was always reminded and the defacto complainant was abused, called by her community name. The first petitioner had taken away the jewels, sreedhana articles and huge cash running to lakhs from the defacto complainant, misappropriated the same and also chased her away from the matrimonial home. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the contention of the petitioner has to be ascertained only during investigation and sought two months time to complete the investigation and file a final report.

4. Considering the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigation is under process, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report or closure report, as the case may be, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, having no merits in this petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mbi To 1.Inspector of Police, W-8, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai.

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

+1cc to Mr.C.Ramkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.23079 Crl.OP.No.6967 of 2021 & Crl.MP.No.4613 of 2021 RSV(CO) CB(15/06/2021)