Held that the Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR is dismissed. The Court held that it cannot rely on a maintenance order denying the de-facto complainant's request, which was passed on 30.09.2021 and had not attained finality as the complainant could still file a revision.
The Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR is 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.6195 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6195 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3557 of 2021
1.Ibrahim
5.Hussain ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5
vs.
2.Sharmila ... 2nd Respondent/
De-facto Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records in Crime No.8 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.T,Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.A.Azhageson for R2
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2019 registered on the file of the first respondent. The de-facto complainant has given a complaint against the petitioners herein and an FIR registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A) and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds.
3.In the very nature of the things, it is not possible for this Court to go into the merits. Consideration of the contentions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners would involve a factual probe. Of course, the
1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6195 of 2021
learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the order in MC No.03/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. In the said order, the request of the de-facto complainant for her maintenance has been denied. But on the strength of the said order, I cannot quash the impugned FIR. It is for more than one reason. The said order was passed only on 30.09.2021 and the de-facto complainant can very well file a revision challenging the same. When the said order has not attained finality, it would not be appropriate for this Court to place reliance on the same.
4.Leaving open the petitioners' contentions and defences, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
// True Copy //
csm
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 Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District.
+1 CC to M/s.A.AZHAGESON, Advocate ( SR-38052[F] dated 09/12/2021 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6195 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3557 of 2021 07.12.2021
PS(CO) GC(06.01.2022) 2P 5C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A) and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 can be quashed in view of the order on 3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ibrahim
Maideen
Mumtaj
Kamaludin
Hussain
The State
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
