Allowed

V. Senthilkumar, Age 36 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Mar 2022CRL OP/23659/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly receiving gold jewels from the second respondent's husband. Court held that allegations were false given contradictory evidence regarding the jewels' location.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2014 in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

V. Senthilkumar, Age 36 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.23659 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.M.P.No.11165 of 2016

V.Senthilkumar

...Petitioner

The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶11

Tmt.P.S.Ambiritha ...Respondent

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.669 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and quash the same.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.669 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and quash the same.

¶15

The case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent on 25.05.2014 to the first respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/Senthilkumar/accused is the complainant's husband's friend and also family friend. Without the knowledge of her husband, the petitioner/accused received the following jewels on 27.05.2013:-

¶16

Gold ring ... One sovereign with six diamond stones Gold stud ... One sovereign with twelve diamond stones Gold Necklace...Five sovereigns (without stones)

¶17

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

¶18

Gold Bangles ... Five sovereigns(without stones) Gold Chain ... Three sovereigns

¶19

When the complainant asked the petitioner to return the jewels, he threatened to kill her husband and child. On 03.05.2014, the petitioner and three others came to the complainant's house at Madurai and told her that she should not live with her husband and should come to live with the petitioner and also threatened her that if she does not come, he will show all her nude photographs to all and destroy her life. She informed this incident to her husband and requests to get back the jewels from the accused and to pay compensation to her husband for the mental harassment.

¶20

On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Cr.No.687 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. After investigation, the first respondent filed final report against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The case was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur in C.C.No.669 of 2014. Challenging the taking cognizance of the case, the present petition is filed to quash the proceedings.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent had given a complaint under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, wherein, she specifically alleged that one day after the day of her marriage on 16.05.2008, her husband and other accused had forcibly taken all her jewels from her and since then the harassment continued. She left the matrimonial home and went to her parents house on 14.11.2013 and has been living there. The complaint was forwarded to All Women Police Station, Triuparankundram, and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.5 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 406, 420, 498(A), 506(i) IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. That apart, the complainant/second respondent had given a complaint before Additional Mahile Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai against her husband and others. In the complaint, she alleged that her jewels had been taken from her forcibly by her husband and relatives. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint dated 25.04.2014 against the petitioner that she had handed over her jewels to the petitioner could not have been true. There are no materials in support of the other allegations made in the complaint and the prayer of the second respondent to get back

¶22

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

¶23

the jewels and pay compensation to her husband goes contra to the allegations made in the complaint. This is a false and motivated complaint. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to quash the proceedings.

¶24

Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the allegations made in the complaint are true and witnesses have given statements corroborating the allegations made in the complaint and this issue has to be tried by the trial court and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has endorsed the view of the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶26

Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the second respondent claims that she had given her jewels on the inducement of the petitioner. On the other hand, the complaints given by her against her husband and family members for Dowry Harassment and also under Domestic Violence Act show that all her jewels are available with her husband and her family members. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint that she has handed over her jewels to the petitioner on his inducement could not have been true. The prosecution had examined totally nine witnesses. Apart from the second respondent, two witnesses have been cited as eye witnesses. Mr.P.T.Sundar, the complainant's husband speaks on hearing the same from his wife/complainant. He is not the eye witness to the handing over of jewels or other allegations made in the complaint.

¶28

One Gunasekara Rao, witness has stated that the petitioner is said to have criminally intimated the second respondent and threatened her to come and live with the petitioner and also threatened her that if she does not come, he will show all her nude photographs to all and destroy her life.

¶29

When the main allegation of taking the gold jewels of the second respondent by the petitioner by inducement could not be believed, other allegations also could not be believed. It appears that a false compliant has been given against the petitioner without any materials to support the allegations. Without any legal evidence, the continuance of the proceedings would be a harassment to the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

Therefore, this Court is of the view that this case is a fit case for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.C.C.No.669 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

s/d-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶34

True Copy

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

¶38

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur

¶39

The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

¶40

The Inspector of Police

¶41

Tiruppur North Police Station

¶42

Tiruppur, Tiruppur District

¶43

+1 CC to Mr.K.Raja, Advocate sr 17108.

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.23659 of 2016

¶45

PMK(CO) SP(28/03/2022)

¶46

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

V. Senthilkumar, Age 36 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Senthilkumar, Age 36 Years, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Balamurugan (M/a 32 Years) Vs the State Represented by

K.Sampath Vs R.Arumugam

N. Ganesh Vs the Union Territory of

M/S.Welfare Creations Rep. by Vs M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd.

M/S.Peppers Media P Ltd. Vs M/S.Raj Television Network Ltd.

Arulprabhakar, Aged 46 Years Vs Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi