← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11792/2022dismissed

A.Yogaguru v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-07-01Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam9 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.11792 of 2022 and CRL.M.P (MD) No.7455 of 2022

1. A.Yogaguru,

2. D.Arulselvi,

3. A.Iswariya Lakshmi, : Petitioners Vs State represented by

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverambur, Trichy District.

Cr.No.18/2022.

2. S.Mohanasundari, : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the impugned FIR in Crime No.18/2022 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits. 1/9

For Petitioners : M/s.Punithan T A, For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.18/2022 on the file of the respondent police. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner and the complainant are husband and wife. There is family dispute between them. For restitution of conjugal rights, a petition had been filed by the defacto complainant and the same is pending at Trichy Family Court. Then, an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 has been filed for return of the jewels but, it was not returned. Meanwhile, the complainant has lodged this complaint to the respondent police and for the same, an FIR in Crime No.18 of 2022 has been registered for the offences under Sections 498(a), 294(b), 323, 406 and 506(i) IPC. Further he submitted that there is no element of harassment as stated by the complainant in the FIR. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2022 has to be 2/9

quashed.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the FIR in Crime No.13.05.2022 has been registered only on 13.05.2022. Hence, the investigation is pending. Further he stated that at the beginning stage, it is inappropriate to quash the proceedings and pleaded to dismiss this petition.

4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police.

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others [(2006)6 SCC 736] laid down the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings, which are relevant for the present purpose are:- (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value 3/9

and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the 4/9

complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

6.I have considered the submissions made by both the parties. 7.On perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 are in-law of the complainant. The petitioners harassed the complainant, abused her with filthy language and also demanded dowry. Then, the complainant lodged a complaint 5/9

against the petitioners. Hence, the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2022 has been registered. Now, the husband and wife are not living together. 8.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P.Kapur v.

to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9.The Investigating Agency should have the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. It is not appropriate to quash the complaint since this Court finds no merit in this case.

10.If the allegations made in the First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offences, interference with the investigation is not proper, because that amounts to interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offences in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Without thorough investigation, it is not possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not. Hence, the investigation should have been allowed to continue, so that on filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the affected party could pursue its remedy against the final report in accordance with law. 11.Therefore, the police will proceed to complete the investigation fairly on the same expeditious and submit the required final report to the 7/9

learned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate who shall act in accordance with law.

12.In the light of the above factual and legal positions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no lr To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverambur, Trichy District.

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

8/9

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

lr ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.11792 of 2022 01.07.2022 9/9