BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 21.03.2018
Order Reserved On :02.02.2018
Order Pronounced On :21.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13215 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.8941 8942 of 2017
1.Ramesh Babu
2.Vethavalli @ Pallinvethavalli
3.Natarajan
4.Brindha @ Brindha Alex Hema
5.Ramaprabha
6.Sathishbaphu …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6
-Vs-
State represented by
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District. …Respondent-1/ Complainant
(Crime No.4 of 2015)
2.Vijayalakshmi …Respondent-2/defacto
complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records of the charge sheet laid
in C.C.No.160 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and quash the same as illegal.
!For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.R.Narayana
:ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6, to quash the charge sheet, in C.C.No.160 of
2016 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manamadurai.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The second respondent herein/defacto complainant was married to the
first petitioner herein on 08.09.2013. At the time of marriage, the parents
of the defacto complainant gave 25 sovereigns of gold and silver articles
worth about Rs.2 lakhs as dowry to the petitioners’ family. Subsequently, the
second respondent became pregnant and during pregnancy, she was subjected to
harassment by demanding more dowry by the petitioners herein and also
assaulted her. Further, the first petitioner suppressed the fact that
already, he got married one lady and through her one female child was born.
Hence, the second respondent has lodged a complaint before the first
respondent and based on the said complaint, the first respondent has
registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2015 for the offences punishable under
Sections 417, 420, 498(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and subsequently, altered into
under Sections 498(A), 495, 506(ii) and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. After investigation, the
first respondent has filed a charge sheet under Sections 498(A), 495, 506(ii)
and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act, against the petitioners herein. Based on the said charge
sheet, a case was taken on file in C.C.No.160 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manamadurai. The accused No.1 to 6 have filed a present petition to quash the
said charge sheet.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that
the F.I.R and the charge sheet did not contain any specific date, on which,
the second respondent was subjected to cruelty. He further contended that at
the time of arguments in the anticipatory bail application, which was filed
by the petitioners herein in Crl.OP(MD)No.3294 of 2015, the second respondent
herein has admitted that she has received all the gold jewels and other
articles. He further submitted that already, the first petitioner herein has
filed a petition in HMOP.No.2 of 2015, on the file of the learned Principal
Sub Court, Dindigul for restitution of conjugal rights and the matter was
settled by way of Lok Adalat on 11.04.2015 and that being so, the question of
harassing the second respondent by the petitioners does not arise. He further
submitted that in respect of the offence under Section 495 of IPC, there is a
bar under Section 198 of Cr.P.C for taking the cognizance, on the basis of
the police report and therefore, he prayed to quash the charge sheet.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the
F.I.R and also the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C show
that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioners
herein have caused cruelty to the second respondent/defacto complainant by
demanding dowry on several occasions. He further submitted that the first
petitioner has suppressed the fact that he already got married with another
lady and a female child was born through her and thereby, he cheated the
second respondent and hence, the charge sheet has been filed under proper
penal provisions of law. He further submitted that this Court cannot give any
finding with regard to the facts and the same can be decided only the trial
court, after taking evidence and hence, he strongly opposed this petition.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended
that in the bail application filed by the petitioners herein, the second
respondent was not impleaded as a party and hence, she did not participate in
the bail proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the second respondent has admitted before the court that
she has taken away her jewellery is not correct. He further contended that
the F.I.R as well as the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C
would prima facie disclose that the petitioners herein have committed
offences under the aforesaid Sections.
7.In the typed set, the petitioners have produced a copy of the
petition filed by the first petitioner herein in HMOP.No.2 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and also filed a copy of
the settlement memo, which was recorded before the Lok Adalat on 11.04.2015.
In the said settlement memo, it is stated as follows:
?We have arrived at settlement terms willingly before the Lok Adalat
held on 11.04.2015 at Dindigul. No coercion or force is applied to arrive at
settlement. This case may be disposed of, as settled accordingly?.
8.In the award, it is stated that the matter is amicably settled before
the Lok Adalat on 11.04.2015 and award is passed in terms of the above
settlement. But the terms of settlement is not enclosed with the said award.
Therefore, this Court cannot express any view as to whether the parties have
settled their issues or not. A perusal of the F.I.R and the statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C would prima facie show that the offences
under Section 498(A), 495, 506(ii) and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, are made out. The offences
under Sections 498A, 506(ii), 406 of IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Women Harassment Act are cognizable and as such, the police is entitled to
investigate the matter and file charge sheet. In so far as the offence under
Section 495 IPC is concerned, it is open to the petitioners to raise
objections before the trial court with regard to the bar under Section 198 of
Cr.P.C. This Court, while dealing with the petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C cannot decide the question with regard to the facts. The said question
is also left open to the trial court to decide after recording evidence.
Therefore, this Petition is bereft of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
7.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Considering the fact that the petitioners 2 to 6 are in-laws and they are
residing at far away places, their personal appearance before the trial Court
is dispensed with until and unless specifically ordered by the trial Court
for their appearance.
To
1.The Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
.
