—
Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs The State Rep By on 30 November, 2023
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022 and
Crl.MP.Nos.12488 15482 of 2022
Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022
1.Lakshmanan
2.L.Peachiammal
3.L.Muthulakshmi … Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
W-17, All Women Police Station,
Peravallur,
Chennai 600 082
2.S.Saraswathi … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila
Court, Egmore and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
For R2 : Mr.G.Thyagarajan
Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022
Balasenthilmurugan … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
W-17, All Women Police Station,
Peravallur,
Chennai 600 082
2.S.Saraswathi … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila
Court, Egmore and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.G.Thyagarajan
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the
proceedings in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498(A),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
506(i) of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent married
the first accused on 24.06.2020. During the marriage, he was presented jewels
and other articles. The second respondent and the first accused had set up a
separate house and was living separately. However, on the ill advice of the
in-laws, the first accused demanded huge dowry and started giving torture and
harassment. The in-laws also phoned to her and threatened with dire
consequences. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the first
respondent registered FIR in crime No.10 of 2021 for the offence under
Sections 498A, 406 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final
report was filed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) of IPC r/w
Section 34 of IPC. There are totally four accused, in which the petitioners in
Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022 are arrayed as A2 and A4 and the petitioner in
Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022 is arrayed as the first accused.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
4. On perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498A of IPC was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws,
by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in
recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased
significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased
tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband’s relatives. Most of these complaints are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations
and it is also filed with oblique motive.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Crl.A.No.195 of 2022 in the case
of Kahkashan Kausar @ Onam others Vs. State of Bihar others,
wherein it is held as follows:
18. ….. this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no
prima facie case is made out against them.
6. On reading of the FIR also, this Court finds that there is no
specific overt act as against the in-laws of the second respondent. Therefore,
initiation of prosecution in the absence of specific allegations would result in
abuse of process of law. Therefore, in the absence of the specific overt act as
against the in-laws, if they are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial,
i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. Therefore,
the entire proceedings cannot be sustained as against accused 2 to 4 as the
entire allegations are only as against the first accused. Further, the allegations
as against A2 and A4 are bald and vague and no specific allegations.
Therefore, the entire proceedings in CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Court, Egmore is liable to be quashed as against A2 and A4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
7. Insofar as the first accused is concerned, there are specific
allegations as against him to attract the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i)
of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. In this regard, 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., wherein it is held 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022merits in accordance with law.
8. 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 Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
9. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order
dated 02.12.2019 passed 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences
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………………..”
10. In view of the above discussion, the entire proceedings in
CC.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore is
quashed as against A2 and A4 and the criminal original petition in
Crl.OP.No.18886 of 2022 is allowed. Insofar as the first accused is concerned,
this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings and the criminal
original petition in Crl.OP.No.24636 of 2022 is dismissed. The trial Court is
directed to complete the trial as against the first accused within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.11.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9 of 10
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The learned Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-17, All Women Police Station,
Peravallur,
Chennai 600 082
3.The Government Advocate,
High Court of Madras
Crl.OP.Nos.18886 24636 of 2022
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10 of 10
