IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2019
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.26759 of 2015 and MP Nos.1 to 1 2 of 2015
Crl.O.P.No.23586 of 2015 and MP No.1 of 2015
J.Srinivasan ..Petitioner in Crl OP No.26759 of 2015
R.K.Jayaraman ..Petitioners in Crl OP No.23586 of 2015
1. The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police station,
Ranipet, Vellore District …Respondent / Complainant in both
2. S.Gayathrilakshmi … Respondent / Defacto complainant
in both Crl.OPs
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the CC No.76
of 2015 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ranipet, Vellore District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan
For Respondent 1 : Mt.M.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed
seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.76 of 2015 pending on the
file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
2. The 2nd respondent, defacto complainant had given
a complaint to the respondent police on 22.12.2014 based on which an
FIR came to be registered on the same day for an offence under Section
498A, Section406, Section323, Section313 and Section506(2) IPC r/w.Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The investigation was completed and a final report was
also filed and the same was taken on file by the Court below.
4. The case of the prosecution is that A1 was married
to the defacto complainant on 13.11.2011 and they hardly lived for 80
days together. The defacto complainant had left the matrimonial home
on 06.02.2012. A1 had filed a petition in HMOP No.101 of 2012 for
restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was resisted by the defacto
complainant and after some time, this petition was withdrawn and A1
filed HMOP No.119 of 2014 praying for divorce. Immediately, after the
filing of this petition, the 2nd respondent had given a complaint before
the respondent police on 22.12.2014 by making various allegations
against the accused persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that even as per the counter filed by the 2nd respondent in HMOP
No.119 of 2012, the 2nd respondent has not denied the fact that she
lived only for 80 days with A1 and that she left the matrimonial home
on 06.02.2012. The efforts taken by A1 to live together by filing a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights was also contested by the
defacto complainant. Therefore, left with no other option, A1 filed a
divorce petition in HMOP No.119 of 2014 and the Sub-Court, Ranipet by
Judgement and decree dated 22.04.2014, was pleased to dissolve the
marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that even though the 2nd respondent is said to have left the
matrimonial home on 06.02.2012, she has subsequently given a
complaint before the respondent police as if an incident took place on
06.12.2012 at 11.00 p.m, wherein she was attacked by the accused
persons and she had informed her parents about the same and they
came to the matrimonial home and had taken back the defacto
complainant. The learned counsel submitted that this single fact is
enough to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court
below since there are overwhelming records to show that on
06.12.2012, the defacto complainant was not there in the matrimonial
home and according to her own counter, she had left the matrimonial
home on 06.02.2012 itself.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
defacto complainant submitted that the decree of divorce will not have
any impact on the criminal proceedings and the Court below has to be
directed to proceed further with the case based on the materials
available on record. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2007 12 SCC 369 [Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the
defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons
and during her stay in the matrimonial home, she was rudely abused
and was asked to bring dowry from her parents. The learned counsel
concluded his arguments by submitting that there are materials to
frame charges against the accused persons and there are no grounds to
interfere with the proceedings at this stage.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent police submitted that the final report has
been filed before the Court below based on the statements made by
the defacto complainant and her parents which clearly make out a case
against the accused persons and the accused persons must face the trial
before the Court below and prove their defense.
9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made on either side and the materials placed on record.
10. The complaint given by the defacto complainant
reads as if she left the matrimonial home on 06.12.2012, not able to
tolerate the cruelty meted out against her by the accused persons.
However, the complaint has been given after nearly two years on
25.12.2014. There is no reason as to why there was such a long delay of
two years in giving the complaint. The respondent police surprisingly
had registered the F.I.R on the same day on which the complaint was
given even without making a preliminary enquiry as required by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353.
11. A preliminary enquiry ought to have been conducted
for two reasons. The first reason is that there was an enormous delay in
giving the complaint against the accused persons and the second reason
is that the issue involves a matrimonial dispute wherein the preliminary
enquiry has to be conducted before an F.I.R is registered.
12. The complaint proceeds as if the 2nd respondent
left the matrimonial home on 06.12.2012, due to an incident which is
said to have taken place on that day and she was taken back by her
parents. However, there is unimpeachable material to show that the
2nd respondent has taken a specific stand before the Sub-Court,
Ranipet in her counter affidavit filed in the HMOP proceedings that she
hardly lived for 80 days in the matrimonial home and that she had left
the matrimonial home on 06.02.2012. When such being the case, it is
highly doubtful as to whether any incident would have taken place on
06.12.2012 as alleged in the complaint.
13. That apart, the marriage between A1 and the
defacto complainant has already been dissolved by a judgement and
decree dated 22.04.2015 and this Judgement has become final. As on
date, A1 has already married again and he has a child. This is one more
important fact that has to be taken into consideration in this case. Yet
another important fact that has to be taken into consideration in this
case is that there was no reason as to why it took two full years for the
2nd respondent to give a complaint against the accused persons.
14. Useful reference can be made to the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [Thermax Limited and others
Vs.K.M.Johny and others] reported in 2011 (13) SCC 412 and [Prem
Kumar and another Vs. State of Rajasthan] reported in 2016 SCC
online SC 923, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an
inordinate delay and latches on the part of the complainant can also be
taken into consideration while dealing with the quash petition under
Section 482 of Cr.PC.
15. It is true that certain allegations have been made by
the defacto complainant and her parents against the accused persons.
However, in view of the above reasons given by this Court, no useful
purpose will be served in proceeding further with the proceedings
before the Court below and the same will result in abuse of process of
Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the
proceedings in exercise of is jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC to
ensure the ends of justice. Almost all the family members of A1 have
been roped in as accused in this case without any strong materials.
16. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are
allowed and the proceedings before the Court below in CC No.76 of
2015 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is also closed.
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ranipet, Vellore District
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
26759 23586 of 2015