← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9082/2017dismissed

Rakesh v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-07-17Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9082 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6164 and 6165 of 2017 Rakesh ... Petitioner/petitioner -vs1. The Inspector of Police, B-3, Teppakulam Police Station, (L & O) Madurai City, Madurai.

(Crime No.142 of 2016) ... Ist Respondent/Complainant

2. M.Lakshmi ... Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2017, on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.T.R.Subramanian For R-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2017, on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and to quash the same.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.Pursuant to the complaint of girl missing, a chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner has committed an offence under Section 366 of IPC. The Charge-sheet would disclose that the Petitioner has taken the

minor girl and committed the offence on the false promise of marrying her.

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would rely upon the Marriage Invitation of the victim stating that the victim got married to another boy of her choice. The learned counsel would further rely upon the statement of the mother of the victim earlier stating that she had a suspicion that her daughter would have been taken by the Petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner has no merit. The statement of the mother of the victim at the time of giving the complaint cannot be a reason to quash the charge-sheet, when the charge-sheet is filed after enquiry. The Petitioner himself has stated that the complaint was originally registered as one for girl missing.

The other contention that the victim has got married to another boy cannot be a reason to quash the charge-sheet, wherein the Petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 366 of IPC. This Court, at this stage of quashing the criminal case cannot conclude on facts by taking the version of the accused or simply relying upon the statement of one of the witness or the subsequent fact that the victim girl has got married to another boy. This Court finds no reason to quash the charge sheet registered against the Petitioner and the same is devoid of merits.

5.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- to be payable by the Petitioner to the credit of Chief Justice Relief Fund of this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, B-3, Teppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to The Section Officer, Accounts Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.T.R.Subramanian, Advocate Sr.No.65791 VSN VB/MR-KKR/SAR4/27.07.2017/3P/6C Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9082 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.6164 and 17.07.2017