SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

J.Srinivasan vs The State Rep. By on 10 July, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.07.2019

CORAM :

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
J.Anjali
K.Karnagaran
V.Kumaravel
K.Savitha
R.K.Jayaraman ..Petitioners in Crl OP No.23586 of 2015

Vs.

1. The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police station,
Ranipet, Vellore District …Respondent / Complainant in both

Crl. OPs

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
Additional Public Prosecutor
2

COMMON ORDER

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,

Ranipet.

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complainant and after some time, this petition was withdrawn and A1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
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
4

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

others].

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
5

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
http://www.judis.nic.in
6

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.

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8

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.

11.07.2019

Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rka

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ranipet, Vellore District

2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rka

Crl.O.P.Nos.

26759 23586 of 2015

10.07.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation