Mr.Venugopal Venkatesh v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.11.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.24462 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.11706 of 2016 1.Venugopal Venkatesh 2.Rajashree Petitioners/2&3 Accused vs.
1.The State rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (Central) Coimbatore City Coimbatore.
1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Shrinidhi Rajagopal 2ndRespondents/Defacto Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the Cr.No.6 of 2016 pending on the file of Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Central), Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. For petitioners Mr.S.Nagarajan For R1 Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash Cr.No.6 of 2016 pending on the file of Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Central), Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. On the complaint lodged by Shrinidhi Rajagopal, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.6 of 2016 on 19.09.2016 u/s 498-A IPC against Vedant, Rajashree and Venkatesh, challenging which Venkatesh and Rajashree are before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Rajasree and Venkatesh are the parents of Vedant, who is the husband of Shrinidhi Rajagopal. He also submitted that Rajasree and Venkatesh are living in Oman and Vedant is living in Dubai and that they have been falsely implicated in the case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The fact remains that the FIR has been registered only on 19.09.2016 and there are prima facie materials in the FIR for proceeding with the investigation. It is the duty of the petitioners to co-operate with the police for investigation. They can even approach the concerned Court and seek for anticipatory bail. In Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and another [2014] 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court has observed that there is a trend in matrimonial cases to make unsubstantiated allegations against all the family members of the husband, only to harass them. Even in the FIR, the allegations against the petitioners are very frail. However, the same cannot be quashed at the threshold.
6. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are directed to co-operate in the investigation and the respondent police are directed to conduct investigation, bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnesh's case (supra) and if it is found that the petitioners are in no way involved in this case, it is needless to state that further action against them should be dropped.
With the above direction, this petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Central), Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.S.Nagarajan, advocate,sr.64772.
cnr(co) krd 14/12 Crl.O.P. No.24462 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/