Dismissed

R.Sivagnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2015CRL OP/26902/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a criminal trial initiated for dowry harassment. Finding sufficient materials in the police report and complainant statement to proceed, the court refused to quash the FIR and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to complete trial within six months.

R.Sivagnanam Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.26902 of 2012
and
MP.No.1 of 2012
1.R.Sivagnanam
2.Thenmozhi
3.Raja ... Petitioners
Vs
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Velore, Namakkal.
2.Hemalatha ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records in CC.No.81 of 2012 on the file of
the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Muruganantham
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,
Addl. Public Prosecutor [for R1]

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Paramathi.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶9

This case is of the year 2012 and it is being repeatedly adjourned, at request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 16.04.2015, it was adjourned today finally. Today when the matter was called, learned counsel for the petitioner is not

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

present. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant is present.

¶12

This Court went through the case records. On a complaint lodged by Hemalatha, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 under Section 498A IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused herein and conducted the investigation. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a Final Report before the learned District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate, Paramathi, which was taken on file as C.C.No.81 of 2012.

¶13

On reading of the Final Report, it appears that the marriage between Hemalatha and Ramachandran took place on 06.03.2011 and at the time of marriage, she was given Rs.10lakhs as cash, 1kg silver articles, other household articles and utensils. It is seen that the accused 1,2 and 3 have been demanding more and more dowry from the family of Hemalatha. On a complete reading of 161 statement recorded by the police, this Court finds that there are enough materials for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioners herein. In fact, in the complaint given by the petitioner itself, the following averments are stated.

¶14

”... ,t;thW fle;j \d;W khj';fshf vd; fztUld; nrh;e;J vd; khkdhh;/ khkpahh;/ mtuJ rnfhjuhp/ rnfhjhpapd; fzth; vd; fzthpd; jha;khkd; uh$h Mfpnahh; kPjk; +.4/00/000 tujl;ridg; gzk; bfhz;L te;jhy; jhd; tPl;Lf;Fs; mDkjpg;nghk;. ,y;iybad;why; tPl;iltpl;L btspna ngh vd;W Juj;jp tpl;ldh;. nkYk; vdf;F t';fpg; ghPl;ir brd;idapy; ,Ue;jjhy; mij vGjp Koj;J tpl;L 01.06.2011 njjpapy; ehDk;/ vd; jhahUk; gukj;jp ntY}Uf;F brd;nwhk;. vd;id rkhjhdg;gLj;jp tPl;Lf;F bfhz;Lngha; tplg;nghd neuj;jpy; ntY}hpy; md;W 11.06.2011y; vd; khkdhh;/ khkpahh;/ rnfhjuhp/ rnfhjhpapd; fzth/; vd; fzthpd; jha;khkd; uh$h Mfpnahh; tPl;Lf;Fs; ,Ue;j vd;Dila bghUl;fs; midj;ija[k; bjUtpy; bfhz;L te;J nghl;L tpl;ldh;. Vw;fdnt mth;fs; Kot[ bra;J vd; miwapy; itj;jpUe;j V.rp.bkrpd; cl;gl midj;ija[k; bjUtpy; nghl;Ltpl;L fjit rhj;jpf;bfhz;ldh;. gy kzp neu';fs; nghuhoa[k; v';fis tPl;ow;Fs; mDkjpf;ftpy;iy. ,e;j rk;gtk; bjUtpy; cs;s midtUf;Fk; bjhpa [k;. ...”

¶15

In the teeth of the aforesaid allegations and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Taramani Parakh Vs State of M.P. reported in [2015] 3 SCALE 616, it cannot be stated that there are no material to proceed against the petitioners herein. In the result, the petition stands dismissed and the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial, within a period of six

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gya
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Paramathi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vellore, Namakkal.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.OP.No.26902 of 2012
CA(CO)
CA(06/07/2015)

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Sivagnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sivagnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavitha Vs the State Rep. by

A.Moideen Vs State Rep. by

A.N.Solai Vs S.R.Manikandan

N.T.Janardhanan Vs State by

Manikandan Vs State Rep. by

Ramesh, S/O.Subramani, Vs State by the Inspector of