The Madras High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code. The court held the case is not fit for quashing but directed the police to conduct a thorough investigation in conformity with Arnesh Kumar principles.
FIR not quashed; petition closed; police directed to conduct thorough investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2809 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2152 of 2017 1.Sheik Mydeen, S/o.P.Meiyakhan, 84, K.O.D jal, Indra Nagar, Daravi, Mumbai – 400 017. 2.Muthu Meeral W/o. Meiyakhan, No.2 A, Pallivasal 1st street, Pathamadai, Tirunelveli District. 3.Nagooral Bevi, W/o. Sheik Mydeen, No.2 A, Pallivasal 1st street, Pathamadai, Tirunelveli District. 4.Kother, W/o. Olimydeen, No.2 A, Pallivasal 1st street, Pathamadai, Tirunelveli District. : Petitioners Vs. 1.The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Ambasamuthiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (In Crime No.15 od 2016) 2.Ahamed Meeral, W/o. Kaja Mydeen, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Manimegalai South Street, Pathamadai, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
2
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records of First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2016 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl.side) *******
O R D E R
On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police has registered the case in Crime No.15 of 2016 for offences under sections 498(A), 406, 294(b), 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code on 29.08.2016 against the petitioners herein, challenging which, the petitioners are before this Court.
2.It is the case of the de-facto complainant that she got married to the first petitioner Sheik Mydeen in the year 2002 and they are blessed with two children, one of whom, is mentally challenged. Immediately after marriage, the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant were living in Mumbai. Thereafter, the first respondent has brought the de-facto complainant and her two children and left them in Pathamadai in Tirunelveli, in her parental home and abandoned her.
3.Heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
4.Ms.Femila, Grade I Constable, Ambasamuthiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, is present before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR does not disclose the comission of the cognizable offence. However, on a reading of the FIR, the second respondent has clearly alleged that on 18.12.2015, all the accused beaten her and assaulted her at the house of the accused. She has also given individual overt acts of each of the petitioner.
6.In the light of the fact that there are prima facie materials in the FIR, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. However, the respondent police is directed to conduct a thorough investigation, bearing in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bihar reported in 2014 (8) Scale 250. If it is found that the allegations are false, it is needless to state that the prosecution against the accused should be closed.
3
With the above observation and direction, this criminal original petition is closed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O.)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Ambasamuthiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1CC to M/S.S.M.A.Jinnah, Advocate, SR.No. 14751
Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2809 of 2017 Dated: 14.03.2017
MR/RR
AM/RR/SAR 2/07.04.2017/3P/4C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report disclosing cognizable offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b), and 506(1) IPC is fit for quashing.
Whether the respondent police is directed to conduct a thorough investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othersRelied on¶16
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharApplied¶16
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014 (8) Scale 250
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sheik Mydeen
Muthu Meeral
Nagooral Bevi
Kother
The State
Ahamed Meeral
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
