SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Syed Ali Fathima vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 November, 2019

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.9501 and 9501 of 2019

1. Syed Ali Fathima
2. Nelofar Nisha Begam … Petitioners
Vs

1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Ramanathapuram

2. Jimana Hasin … Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the
records in FIR No.12/2019 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police, All Women
Police Station, Ramanathapuram under section 498A, 354A, 511, 506(2) of
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Harassment Act and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Johnny Basha

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
No.1 Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in Crime No. 12 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.

1/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner are innocent they have not committed any offence as alleged by

the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case

in Crime No. 12 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498A, 354A, 511,

506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Harassment Act as against

the petitioners. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that even at the time of marriage between the first accused and the second

respondent, the petitioners already got married and living separately.

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the

investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final

report.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific

allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated. Further the

FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts. Further, it cannot be

quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie

commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with

2/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab

and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

6.It is also 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 – Sau.

Kamal 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 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

3/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

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 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.”

4/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash

the First Information Report. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands

dismissed. Further the petitioners are directed to submit all documents before

the first respondent and on receipt of same, the first respondent police is

directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned

Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.11.2019

Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
aav

To

1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Ramanathapuram

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

5/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
aav

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16005 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.9501 and 9501 of 2019

06.11.2019

6/6

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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