Madras High Court
Elangovan vs The State Rep. By Its on 14 June, 2022
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
30~08~2022 06~09~2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022
1. Elangovan
2. Mohanammal
3. Priya
4. J. Suresh
5. Amara .. Petitioner/Accused 1 to 5
[in both Crl.O.Ps.]
vs.
1. The State Rep. By its
Inspector of Police,
Gingee All Women Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
[Cr.No.25 of 2022] .. Respondent/Complainant
[in both Crl.O.Ps.]
2. Indumathi .. Respondent/Defacto Complaiant
[in both Crl.O.Ps.]
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition No.18290 of 2022 filed under Section 482 of
Page 1 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022
Cr.P.C.to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the
Respondent Police and quash the same; and Crl.O.P.No.16062 of 2022 is filed to
set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram.
For Petitioners : Mr. Saravanakumar
[in both Crl.O.P.s.]
For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor [for R1]
Mrs.A.L. Gandhimathi [for R2]
COMMON ORDER
1.a. The Criminal Original Petition No.16062 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
1.b. The Criminal Original Petition No.18290 of 2022 has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.25 of 2022 filed under Section 498-A, 294(b), 323, 336, 341, 406 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w 3(1) and 4 of DVC Act, 1961 r/w Section 4 of Tamil Naud Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022 pending on the file of Page 2 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 the All Women Police Station, Gingee.
2. First accused is son of Second Accused; Third Accused is sister; 4th accused is brother-in-lawand the 5th accused is the aunt of the A1. FIR has been filed as per the direction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Orders have been passed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.
3. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is as follows:
3.a The marriage of the A1 and defacto complainant was fixed after finding the match from the matrinony. On 01.12.2019 prior to marriage, A1 has informed the defacto complianant that the parents may not come for marriage they are not in good terms by saying, he has made the defacto complainant to accept the marriage.
A1 has also informed to the Defacto Complainant that at the time of marriage of A4, 100 sourverigns was given and car worth amout Rs.10 lakh was also given. Similarly, A1 informed that dowry also given at the time marriage. However, the defacto complainant mother agreed to provide 60 souveringns and Rs.5 lakhs and they spent Rs.15 lakhs for marriage, besides household articles were also given as seer. Thereafter, A1 also received Rs.30 lakhs on 23.10.2019 towards the said Page 3 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 amount he has also executed sale deed in respect of property in Survey No.166/7 to an extent of 54 cents in favour of the defacto complainant's father.
3.b. After marriage, the family members of the A1 have not shown sufficient love and affection and the defacto complainant also came to know that before marriage A1 had some illegal connection. When the same was questioned A1 denied such allegaion. Thereafter, A1 family members also demanded dowry. Even before the marriage, the 1st Accused was talking with some other lady and also during the Pongal the defacto complainant was asked to cook for 20 people and also accused the defacto complainant. He also used to speak with a lady every night and even after separate residence, he will keep her inside the house and open the door only in the evening after returned from his work. The defacto complainant also came to know that A1 used to speak in phone even in night hours. Defacto Complainant came to know that Al has already had illegal connection with somebody. Thereafter, she has also came to know that A1 has also received the sale consideration of the property executed in favour of her father and besides he has not come to the hospital whenever the defacto complainant in the hospital and even in the year 2020 when she went to the hospital for scanning, Page 4 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 it is found that child is not in full growth. Even at that time also A1 has not attended the defacto complainant properly. Even during her ill-health he has not come to the hospital. Hence, according to her she has been subjected to harassment in the hands of the Petitioner, hence filed a private the complaint before the Magistrate. The same has been forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has passed an order directed the police to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice on both parties and file an detailed report. By holding so, the learned Magistrate also directed the police to register FIR on or before 28.06.2020.
3.c. The order, directing the police to register the FIR by the learned Magistrate is challenged before this Court. This Court has granted interim Stay on 11.07.2022. Despite the Interim order passed by this Court, now the FIR came to be registered on 13.07.2022 .
4.a. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already filed the divorce petition in HMOP No.83 of 2020 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ginjee. It is further submitted that when the learned Page 5 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 Magistrate has dirceted the investigating officer to file a report, the Investigating Officer has thoroughly enquired the entire complaint and filed a report before the learned Magistrate on 26.08.2022 stating that there was no dowry harassment and no cruelty has been caused and the detailed report has been filed before the learned Magistrate in pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate. On 26.05.22 as per the Order of the learned Magistrate, the investigating officer, after conducting a preliminary investigation filed a detailed report stating that there is no offence has been made out. However, FIR has been filed on 13.07.2022 contrary to the earlier report of the investigating officer. The very order of the learned Magistrate is also stayed by this cout on 11.07.2022. Thereafter on 13.07.2022 FIR came to be filed.
4.b. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would further submit that the detail report filed before the learned Magistrate indicate that it is only an ordinary family dispute between the parties and no dowry harassment or cruelty has been established. On the same complaint FIR has been filed despite the fact that the order of the Magistrate has been stayed by this Court. It is his further contention that the entire allegation in the FIR is taken into face value, it is ony an Page 6 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 ordinary trivial issue between the husband and wife, wherein the entire family members have been robed by omnibus allegations. Preliminary enquiry conducted by the Respondent police clearly indicate that the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted the investigation and both husband and wife were sent to the Psychologist for counseling and Psychologist Report is also taken note of and it is never stated anywhere in the counseling that the defacto complainant was subjected to any form of violence or harassment in connection with dowry by the family members. The divorce proceedings is already pending before the court from the year 2020. Hence submitted that once the complaint has already been probed and negative report is filed, there cannot be second FIR on the similar allegations. Hence, prayed to allow the petitions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that though the Magistrate has directed to file a report, learned Magistrate has indicated that registration of FIR is necessary. Only on that basis FIR has been registered and allegation in the entire complaint clearly make out the case atleast as against the A1. Therefore, quashment of FIR does not arise at all. Page 7 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022
6. I have perused the entire materials. As the allegations in the FIR as extracted above, indicate that there is no specific instances of the allegations have been made, only omnibus allegations have been made. The main grievance of the defacto complainant is that she has not been properly looked after by her husband. Though, general allegations made that there was a demand of dowry, the allegation itself indicate that the dowry and seer has been voluntarily given at the time of marriage.
7. Be that as it may. When the same complaint has forwarded to the preliminary enquiry, it is relevant to note that Social Welfare Officer has also conducted enquiry in this regard on 30.06.2021, 07.07.2021, 14.07.2021, 15.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 and both parties were sent to the counseling and the Social Welfare Officer has also submitted his report holding that there is no dowry demand. That apart, since A1 was working in the Police Department, Additional Superintendent of Police also conducted an enquiry and examined both of them and both of the husband and wife sent to the Psychologist, Mother Trust, Villupuram. The entire Psychological report referred in the Report also did not indicate any dowry harassment. Considering the entire Social Welfare Office Page 8 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 Report and Psychological Report, the complaint has been closed and the report has been filed stating that no offence has been made out. Once the complaint has been closed, the remedy of the defacto complainant is either to file a protest application or pursue a remedy under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
8. On a similar set of allegations, now FIR has been filed, that too after the stay was granted by this Court, against orders of the learned Magistrate, which is, in fact, not permissible in law. The entire allegations and closure report and the same set of allegations clearly indicate that there is a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and divorce proceedings also pending. Now it is argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that she has also filed an application for Restitution of Conjugal rights. If really she was subjected to such an harassment or dowry demand, the question of re-union will not arise at all. Therefore, when the police made a thorough enquiry and the parties are subjected to enquiry before the Social Welfare Officer on various dates as referred above, besides they were referred to the psychologist and no allegations have made before the Psychologist and Social Welfare Officer, merely on the basis of omnibus allegations when the very complaint itself is closed by way of reports stating that no offence is made out, onceagain filing an FIR on the same set of allegations does Page 9 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 not arise at all. Further, the entire family members have been robed in including sister and brother-in-law on general omnibus allegations. Such things cannot be entertained for the trivial matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. Now the trend has developed to implicate the family members. As the very allegations are found to be false with detailed enquiry report dated 28.06.2022 filing an FIR on the same allegation that too after granting stay of order of the learned Magistrate by this Court itself is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. In view of the above, both the Criminal Original Petitions are Ordered. FIR in Cr.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Ginjee is quashed and the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.09.2022
ggs
Index : yes
Internet : yes
Speaking/non-speaking order
Page 10 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, Gingee All Women Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page 11 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs Pre-delivery Order in:
Crl.O.P.Nos.16062 and 18290 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12034 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.18290 of 2022 06.09.2022 Page 12 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis