Sathiskumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8445 of 2021 Sathiskumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.
(Crime No.946 of 2019) 2.Ganesan 3.Prasanna Divya ... Respondents [R3 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 20.10.2021] Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan Page No. 1 of 7
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.Kaliraj
O R D E R
Seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the second respondent/de facto complainant and the husband of the third respondent. The petitioner and his wife (third respondent) are living separately due to difference of opinion. According to the de facto complainant, on 07.10.2019, at about 6 p.m., when he was in his house along with his wife and his daughter (third respondent), the accused came down to their house, abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and also pushed him down, as a result of which, the de facto complainant sustained injuries. The further contention of the de facto complainant is that the accused threatened him with dire consequences if he pursues with the divorce petition filed by his daughter, third respondent. Based on the Page No. 2 of 7
complaint given by the de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station registered F.I.R. in Crime No. 946/2019 on 05.11.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 323 & 506(1) of IPC.
3. The grounds on which Mr.T.Vadivelan, learned counsel for the accused seeks to quash the final report in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur are as under: i. Though the occurrence took place on 07.10.2019, the complaint was lodged with the police on 04.11.2019 and F.I.R. was registered on 05.11.2019. Therefore, there is an abnormal delay in lodging the complaint.
ii. Since the incident took place inside the house of the de facto complainant, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not made out.
iii. The de facto complainant did not sustain injuries to attract the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
iv. The accused also did not threaten the de facto complainant with dire consequence as alleged by the prosecution. v. Since the de facto complainant is residing only in a rented house, the offence under Section 448 of IPC would not be attracted .
Page No. 3 of 7
4. Per contra, Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police would contend that charges have been framed against the accused and the case now stands posted for examination of prosecution side witnesses.
5. Mr.M.Kaliraj, learned counsel for the second and third respondents would contend that the police after conducting proper investigation laid a final report and therefore, there are no valid reasons to quash the final report. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition.
6. The specific contention of the de facto complainant is that the accused came down to his house, abused him in filthy language and also pushed him down and that when the neighbours prevented the accused from beating the de facto complainant, the accused threatened him with dire consequences.
7. The specific contention of the accused that since the entire incident took place in the rented house of the de facto complainant, the Page No. 4 of 7
provisions of Sections 294(b) & 448 of IPC are not attracted as far as the present case is concerned cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the accused came down to the house of the de facto complainant, he started abusing the de facto complainant in filthy language, as a result of which, neighbours came over to the house of the de facto complainant and tried to prevent the accused from abusing and beating the de facto complainant. Merely because the house in which the de facto complainant resides is not his own house, it cannot be said that Section 448 of IPC would not be attracted.
8. The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. prima facie show the commission of offence by the accused. It is settled law that this Court cannot quash the final report on the ground that there is a delay in lodging complaint against the accused. Moreover, in the instant case, the accused is the son-in-law of the de facto complainant and a divorce petition between the accused and the daughter of the de facto complainant, third respondent is also pending for adjudication. Therefore, the de facto complainant would have waited for some time to get the problem solved amicably between his daughter (third respondent) and his son-in-law. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to Page No. 5 of 7
quash the final report in C.C.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur.
9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15.02.2024 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 6 of 7
R.HEMALATHA , J.
JEN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15675 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8445 of 2021 15.02.2024 Page No. 7 of 7