CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
1.Govindhan
2.Pappammal
3.Rangasamy … Petitioners
-vs-
1.Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Kondalapatti,
Salem District.
[Crime No.11 of 2010]
2.Mahalakshmi … Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the entire records connected with the case in
C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem and
quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran, GA (Crl.Side) for R1
******
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
ORDER
The first respondent registered a case as against the petitioners and one
another in Crime No.11 of 2010 for the offence under Section 498A and 323
IPC, based on the complaint given by the second respondent. After
investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet
on file in C.C.No.3 of 2012 and sent summons to the petitioners. The husband
of the second respondent/complainant is arrayed as A1 and the petitioners
herein are A2 to A4. After receiving the summons, the petitioners have filed
the present petition to quash the complaint in C.C.No.3 of 2012, pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these
petitioners were no way connected with the alleged offence and there is no
specific overt act as against these petitioners. He further submitted that even
the Doctor, has not given any wound certificate, since the second respondent
voluntarily left the hospital even without informing the hospital authorities.
The statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C by the respondent Police from some
of the prosecution witnesses also not spoken about the involvement of these
petitioners and therefore, there is no specific allegations as against these
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
petitioners. The first petitioner is the father-in-law, second petitioner is the
mother-in-law and third petitioner is the close relative of the petitioners 1
and 2. They have been falsely implicated in this complaint and they have not
demanded any dowry or harassed the second respondent. Therefore, the
complaint is to be quashed.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that even
in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the investigating
office itself clearly reveals that there is a prima facie allegation as against
these petitioners and also A1. He further submitted that the defacto
complainant has clearly given a statement before the investigating officers.
Therefore, a prima facie case is made out as against the petitioners and the
probative value of the materials cannot be gone into now and there is no
ground to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.3 of 2012 . Therefore, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
4.Heard both sides and perused the records.
5.Admittedly A1 is the husband of the second respondent. The first
petitioner/A2 is the father-in-law and second petitioner/A3 is the mother-in-
law of the 2nd respondent and the third petitioner/A4 is the relative of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/6
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
petitioners 1 and 2. On perusal of records, there is a prima facie allegation
that A1, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent had a concubine and also
alleged that the petitioners have harassed and beaten the second respondent
seeking dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent gave
birth to a second male child, during that time the first accused went to the 2 nd
respondent’s parental home and demanded Rs.1 Lakh. Hence, prima facie
allegation is made out as against the petitioners and A1. Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to invoke its power under Section 482 to quash the complaint in
C.C.No.03 of 2012. The petitioners can raise all their defence before the trial
Court.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
7.Since the calendar case in C.C.No.03 of 2012 is pending from the year
2012 onwards, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, is directed to
dispose of the case in accordance with law within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and report compliance.
29.01.2020
rm
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/6
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate V,
Salem.
2.The Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Kondalapatti,
Salem District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/6
CRL.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
rm
Crl.O.P.No.15248 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2013
29.01.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/6
