V.Saroja v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4822 of 2022
1. V.Saroja
2. Selvaraj
3. Selvarani ... Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 4 Vs
1. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Manaparai Town Trichy District ...1St Respondent/Complainant (Crime No. 4 /2022)
2. Revathi ... Respondents/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.4 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same as against the petitioners 2,3,4 is concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. The prosecution case is that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 04.06.2015 and at the time of marriage the parents of the defacto complainant has given 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and also 31/2 sovereigns of gold jewels to the first accused and other sreedhana articles and household articles worth about Rs.3,28,000/-. After marriage they lived happily at the matrimonial house but after some time there was some mis understanding and the first accused demanded additional dowry and also caused cruelty on her and thereafter due to intervention of some elders, they got united and lived in the matrimonial home. After some period, again the first accused along with other petitioners jointly abused the defacto complainant, and 1/4
caused cruelty on her and demanded additional dowry and finally she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 22.07.2016, hence she was forced to lodge a complaint before the Manaparai police station and during enquiry the police pacified the issue and advised the first accused to live with the defacto complainant. Thereafter on 03.02.2022 at about 4.30 pm., the first accused along with the other petitioner came to the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted her demanding additional dowry and when the same was questioned, the first accused along with other accused said to have threatened her, hence the present case came to be registered. 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.
4.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police are about to file the final report before the concerned court. 5.
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
7.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., where in it is held follows:- "4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to 2/4
find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.
6.........
7.........
8........
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
8.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the 3/4
date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav To
1. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Manaparai Town Trichy District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4822 of 2022 18.04.2022 NSN(CO) KB(25.04.2022) 4P 3C 4/4