Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) Nos.17163 and 22776 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.7595, 7596, 10740 and 10741 of 2018
1.Parvathi
2.Sugumaran
3.Mathavi
4.Raji … Petitioners/A2-5 in
Crl.O.P.17163/2018
1.Gopinath … Petitioner/A1 in
Crl.O.P.22776/2018
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime No.4/2018
2.G.Rega … Respondents in both
petitions
Common PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the charge
sheet in C.C.No.197 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.
1, Thanjavur and quash the same as against these petitioners are
concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi,
G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.C.Suresh Kannan for R2
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
ORDER
These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.197 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Thanjavur as against the petitioners.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been
falsely implicated in the case with oblique motive. The petitioners did
not demand any dowry from the defacto complainant and they have
not harassing her. He further submitted that after filing the divorce
petition by the husband in H.M.O.P.No.124 of 2018, the petitioner
filed the false complaint against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed
for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings as against the
petitioners.
3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted
that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against
the petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings
cannot be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioners
have to be gone into a full-fledged trial and hence, he prayed for
dismissal of these petitions.
2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
records.
5.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated
12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. SectionKamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the
State of Maharashtra ors., as follows:-
“4. The only point that arises for our
consideration in this case is whether the
High Court was right in setting aside the
order by which process was issued. It is
settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage
of taking cognizance and summoning, is
required to apply his judicial mind only with
a view to taking cognizance of the offence,
or in other words, to find out whether a
prima facie case has been made out for
summoning the accused persons. The
learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or
evidence in support of the complaint,
because the Magistrate must not undertake
the exercise to find out whether the
materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings
is called for only in a case where the
3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
complaint does not disclose any offence, or
is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance
has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open
to the High Court to quash the same. It is
not necessary that a meticulous analysis of
the case should be done before the Trial to
find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a
reading of the complaint and consideration
of the allegations therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed,
there would be no justification for the High
Court to interfere.
6……….
7……….
8………
9. Having heard the learned Senior
Counsel and examined the material on
record, we are of the considered view that
the High Court ought not to have set aside
the order passed by the Trial Court issuing
summons to the Respondents. A perusal of
the complaint discloses that prima facie,
offences that are alleged against the
Respondents. The correctness or otherwise
4/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
of the said allegations has to be decided
only in the Trial. At the initial stage of
issuance of process it is not open to the
Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering
into the merits of the contentions made on
behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints
cannot be quashed only on the ground that
the allegations made therein appear to be of
a civil nature. If the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint, the
criminal proceeding shall not be
interdicted.”
6.It is also 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., 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 their5/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018statements 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 merits in accordance
with law.
7.In view of the above citations, the criminal proceedings as
against the petitoners cannot be quashed at its threshold and it has to
be gone in to by full fledged trial. Therefore, the charges cannot be
quashed at this stage and these criminal original petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed
with the liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the
trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also
6/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur,
is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case, within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is
dispensed with, except the dates on which, the trial Judge insisted the
petitioners for their appearance.
20.09.2019
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/no
Arul
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
7/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17163 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Arul
Order made in
CRL.O.P (MD) Nos.17163 and 22776 of 2018
20.09.2019
8/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
