Dismissed

Jegubur Natchiyar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/2213/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a dowry case where investigation was pending, the Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case. Relying on Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar, the Court dismissed the petition, observing that courts cannot stifle proceedings by entering into merits at the initial stage. An order was passed directing the police to complete investigation

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Investigation directed to be completed within eight weeks and final report filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Jegubur Natchiyar Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2213 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2019 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2213 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 1175 of 2019

¶4

Jegubur Natchiyar ... Petitioner /Accused No.2

¶5

¶6

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Golden Rock, Trichy District. (Crime No.22 of 2018) ..1^st respondent/Defacto complainant

¶7

Parveen Begam 3. A. Jakabar Ali ... Respondent Nos-2 & 3

¶8

(3^rd respondent is impleaded by order of this Court, dated 13.09.2019 in Crl.O.P(MD) No.2213 of 2019)

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in Crime No.22 of 2018, dated 15.12.2018 and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Vadivel

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.Paul Murugesh for R2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.22 of 2018, dated 15.12.2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.

¶14

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 22 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶15

3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶16

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/4

¶18

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2213 of 2019

¶19

5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, 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 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.

¶20

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:-

¶21

"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.

¶22

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 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.

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2213 of 2019

¶26

6......... 7......... 8........

¶27

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."

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and follow the police standing orders and file a final report within a period of Eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

ksa

¶34

¶35

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Golden Rock, Trichy District.

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

CRL.O.P (MD) No. 2213 of 2019

¶39

CRL.O.P (MD) No.2213 of 2019 13.09.2019

¶40

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

¶41

+1 cc Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU ,Advocate, SR.No. 86860

¶42

KK/SAR/04.11.2019/4P-4C

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

Jegubur Natchiyar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jegubur Natchiyar 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

S.J.Sundar Singh Vs a.Maria Antony Samy

A.Rajendran Vs The Sub Inspector of police

P.Ponsekar Vs The Superintendent of police

Sivalingam, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ayyanar Vs the District Collecotr

R.Sivaraman, Vs the Superintendent of Police