← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7313/2016dismissed

Shanmugaraja v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-04-28Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P(MD)No.7313 of 2016 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.3705 of 2016 1.Shanmugaraja 2.Rukmani 3.Bama 4.Vijayakumar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 -vs1. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Devi ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the First Information Report, dated 19.02.2016 in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For R - 1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the First Information Report, dated 19.02.2016 in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.On the complaint lodged by Devi, the respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2016 on 19.02.2016 under

Sections 498(A) I.P.C and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against five accused. Challenging the same, A2 to A5 are before this Court.

4. On a reading of the F.I.R it is seen that the defacto complainant got married to Maruthupandi-A1 on 12.05.2013 and thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather.

5. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that she was physically assaulted and thrown out of the house by the accused herein.

6. Since prima facie case, which discloses the commission of offence, this Court will not interfere at this stage. However, it is not uncommon in matrimonial offence for complainants to make false allegations against all the members of the husband's family as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2014(3) MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Vijayakumar (A5) is a police constable and that his chance of promotion is prejudiced on account of this F.I.R. Hence, this Court directs the respondent Police to conduct the investigation bearing in mind the caution given by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2014(3) MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC). If it is found that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, it is needless to say that they should not be added in the final report.

8. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District.

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

+1cc to M/s.M.Jegadeeshpandian, Advocate, Sr.No.25347 ps JM/MP/12.05.2016/2P-4C Crl.O.P(MD)No.7313 of 2016 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.3705 of 2016 28.04.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/