In an matrimonial dispute civility matter, petitioners sought to quash FIR. The court held the FIR disclosed prima facie offence and refused to quash, directing police to complete investigation within 12 weeks and file final report.
FIR not quashed; police directed to complete investigation and file final report within twelve weeks.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:13.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.12212 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.4848 of 2020
1.Sankar Kumar
2.Padmavathi
3.Dharmamoorthy ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1.State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83.
(Crime No.4 of 2020)
2.J.S.Santhoshini ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.4 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners: Mr.C.B.Murali Krishnan For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.4 of 2020 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 13 (1) (1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as against the petitioners.
2.According to the 1st petitioner, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is his wife and she lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police with false allegations against him and his parents, and the same was registered in Crime No.4 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent police. It is stated that right from the inception of marriage, the 2nd respondent is not interested to live with 1st petitioner and she herself left to the matrimonial home and later lodged a complaint vide C.S.R.No.119 of 2019 with the respondent police which later https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to be closed after conducting enquiry since the
petitioner handed over all gold jewels and silver items to the 2nd respondent. However, after period of a month again the 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and subsequently, pursuant to the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the present case came to be registered against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are raised the following grounds:-
“i.The petitioners submit that there is
absolutely no case made out for registration of crime against petitioners, all arranged petitioners herein has accused.
ii.The First information report does not contain any ingredients of an offence under Sections 420 and 120(b) IPC. iii.The 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had matrimonial dispute between them. The petitioners 2 and 3 are senior citizen and both of them diabetic patient. Already the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant's complaint was closed on the ground that, she is not willing to proceeds and further stated that: ehd; mtUld; Tl;L FLk;gkhf thHKoahJ vd;gjhy; vdf;F rPjdkhf bfhLj;j j';f eiffs;. bts;sp bghUl;fs ;. gpj;jiy. rpy;th ; bghUl;fis ey;y Kiwapy; bgw;W bfhz;nld ;/ nkYk; vdf;Fk ; vd; fztUf;Fk ; cs;s gpur;fidia guRg;gukhf FLk;g ePjp kd;wk ; K:yk ; jPh;j ;Jf ;bfhs;fpnwd;/ vd; kDkPJ ve;j eltof;ifa[k ; njitapy;iy vd nfl;L bfhs;fpnwd;/
iv.The petitioners submit that having receiving the Sridhana articles and agreed to approach to family court for the matrimonial dispute before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant again lodged a private complaint before the learned 17th M.M.Saidapet, against the petitioners on the same allegations, an FIR was registered against the petitioners which is highly illegal, without justification.”
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in “Khagen Chandra Nath vs. The State Of Assam And another” in Crl.Revision Case no.1 of 2016, dated 01.06.2016. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in “Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs. Fazru” reported in (2010) 2 SCC 63.
7.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed at 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 the matter, investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.
"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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.
is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.4 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS )
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.C.B.Muralikrishnan, Advocate,sr.26758.
Vgii(co)
krd 3/11
CRL.O.P.No.12212 of 2020
and CRL.M.P.No.4848 of 2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report disclosing prima facie commission of cognizable offence can be quashed at the threshold stage?
Whether the High Court is justified in not interfering with the investigation when the allegations appear to disclose an offence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khagen Chandra Nath vs. The State Of Assam And anotherReferred¶17
Khagen Chandra Nath vs. The State Of Assam And another, Crl.Revision Case no.1 of 2016, dated 01.06.2016
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs. FazruDistinguished¶17
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors.Distinguished¶24
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019
Sankar Kumar
Padmavathi
Dharmamoorthy
State Rep. By its Inspector of Police
J.S. Santhoshini
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
