Angammal v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3992 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2911 of 2017 1.Angammal 2.Ayyappa Manigandan @ Ayyappan 3.Selvam @ Selvaraj 4.T.Murugesan : Petitioners Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.
2.Shanthi : Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2017 for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 420, 494, 498(A) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Baskaran For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) *******
O R D E R
It is the case of Shanthi that she got married to one Shanmugavel and through Shanmugavel, she has a son by name Akash and that Shanmugavel had failed and neglected to maintain her. Therefore, Shanthi has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Dindigul, claiming maintenance from Shanmugavel. While so, Shanthi has also parallelly filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul against Shamugavel and his family members. Not satisfied with that,
Shanthi filed a private complaint in Cr.M.P.No.6226 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, and the same was referred to the respondent police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 on 04.01.2017 under Sections 294(b), 420, 494, 498(A) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code against Shamugavel and five others, challenging which, A-3 to A-6 are before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent. Today, Mrs.R.Eswari, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul is present.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Shanthi was a concubine of Shanmugavel and these petitioners have nothing to do with the relationship Shanthi had with Shanmugavel. He also submitted that Shanthi has already initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. While so, she has fabricated a story as if she was subjected to cruelty by the accused herein and has obtained an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which, the police have registered the above First Information Report. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the First Information Report deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) refuted the contentions.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
6. There appears to be sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, inasmuch as Shanthi had earlier instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Domestic Violence Act and has, thereafter, filed a private complaint, which has been referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A reading of the complaint, which formed the basis of the First Information Report in Crime No.2 of 2017, does not inspire the confidence of this Court vis-a-vis the allegations against the petitioners herein. In Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) Scale 250, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted the tendency of defacto complainants to falsely implicate all the family members of the husband. However, the investigation should proceed as against Shanmugavel to its logical conclusions. Therefore, this Court directs the first respondent to unbiasedly conduct the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2017 and during investigation, if it is found that the petitioners have been
falsely implicated, the further prosecution against them should be dropped. The police shall also follow the procedure laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) Scale 250, while conducting the investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Town Sub-Division, is directed to monitor the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of All Women Police Station, Dindigul Town.
7. This Criminal Original Petition is closed with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(RTI) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Town Sub-Division.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC TO M/S.V.BASKARAN,ADVOCATE,SR NO.50516 SML MAS/MR/SAR4:13.04.2017:3P-5C Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3992 of 2017 Dated: 06.04.2017