Petitioners challenged the maintenance of the FIR against them as AucpaacaA. The Court held that veracity is not for this stage and the petitioner must wait for the final report/order of deletion by the investigation officer before seeking quashability.
None. The petition for quashing of the FIR was dismissed.
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.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.10.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.10981 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5008 of 2020
1.N.Mohamed Ibrahim 2.M.Rahimal Beevi ... Petitioners/5 and 6 Accused (Wrongly mentioned in the FIR an Raihana Begam) Vs
1.State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.19 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Mohammed Sharibal Nasreen ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent/complainant in Crime No.19 of 2020 and quash the same as illegal as far as the petitioners / 5th and 6th accused are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.A.M.Raja For R1 : Ms.S.E.Veronica Vincent Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.
2.The petitioners are figuring as A5 and A6 in Crime No.19 of 2020 registered on the file of the All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 406, 498 (A) and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3.The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioners are not even relatives of the husband of the second respondent. He therefore wants this Court to quash the FIR atleast as far as they are concerned.
4.As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein.
1/4
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2020
5.The allegations may be true or may not be true, but this is not the stage to go into the veracity of the allegations. The petitioners have come at a very early stage. FIR was registered only on 16.09.2020.The petitioner will have to necessarily wait till the final report is filed. If the petitioners' defence is true, certainly they may even be deleted, when the final report is filed. That is a matter left to the discretion of the Investigation Officer. At this stage, this Court cannot pronounce on the innocence or otherwise of the petitioners herein.
6.Leaving open the petitioner's defences, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rmi
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.10981 of 2020 08.10.2020
VB (02.11.2020) 2P 3C
2/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should quash the FIR against the petitioners at this early stage of the proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Mohamed Ibrahim
M.Rahimal Beevi
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
