Karuppiah v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 29/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.11308 and 11309 of 2016 1.Karuppiah 2.Pichaiyammal 3.Mariappan 4.Jegatheesan 5.Nandhini 6.Priya 7.Kasi 8.Pandiyan 9.Chitra 10.Lakhsmi 11.Ponnangan 12.K.Vijayakumar
...Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6
Vs.
1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparankundram,Madurai.
(Crime No.127 of 2013) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Tamil Selvi ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with the charge sheet laid down by the respondent herein in C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai and to quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.N.Sathish Babu For R1 :
Mr.R.Erottuchamy Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai, as against the petitioners. 2.The brief fact of the complaint is that, the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. The petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 are the in-laws of the second respondent and the petitioners 6,7,8 are none other than the petitioners close relatives. The first petitioner and the 2nd respondent got married on 24.06.2010 and it was an arrange marriage. At the time of marriage, the 2nd respondent's parents offered 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments 1/4
to the 2nd respondent and 2 sovereigns of chain, 1 sovereign of ring to the first petitioner and house hold articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- to the couple. Thereafter, they took a house for rent at Vilacherry in Madurai and lived separately. The first petitioner pledged all her jewels on the instigation of his family members. Such being the situation, the second respondent got aborted on 29.10.2010 and in view of her health condition, the first petitioner dropped her at parents' house. Since, none came for 1 month to take the 2nd respondent, the mother of the 2nd respondent dropped her in her matrimonial home, wherein the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 demanded more dowries by threatening them with dire consequences.
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. Without any base, the case has been registered as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 494, 506(i) IPC., and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai District. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Erottuchamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.
5. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:- " 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
2/4
6.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: "19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for."
7.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged.
..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences 3/4
alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C. No.200 of 2016 , within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
10. Accepting the said submission, the personal appearance of the petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vsd To 1.The Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level),Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Thiruparankundram,Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.11308 and 11309 of 2016 29.10.2020 CK(CO) AP(09/11/2020) 4P 4C 4/4