Madras High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Rep By on 17 October, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.10625 of 2021
1.Ashok Kumar
2.Valliammal
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State Rep by:
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cheyyar,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.Sandhiya
...
Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in Crime No.6 of 2019, pending on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Jawahar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: No appearance for R2
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.6 of 2019, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
2. Heard Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
3. The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3. The defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners. The marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant occurred on 21.03.2019 and it was a registered marriage.
4. The case of the prosecution is that subsequent to the marriage of the defacto complainant with the first accused, she was disliked by her in-laws who are the petitioners herein. So, the first accused convinced her to stay back at her father’s place for some time. After she went to her father’s place, the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 first accused sent a notice for dissolution of marriage. When she came back and enquired the accused about the fairness of their action, the petitioners abused her with filthy language and prevented her from living in her matrimonial home. On the above allegations, a case has been registered against all the three accused under Sections 294(b), 498(A) & 506(i) of I.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as the allegations against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3 are concerned, there is nothing to make out a case under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C; the complaint itself has been given just to harass the petitioners; since there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners, the case against the petitioners should be quashed.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that at the time when the defacto complainant went to her father’s place, she was pregnant and knowing about her pregnancy, the accused 1 to 3 harassed and ill-treated her and made it impossible for her to live at her matrimonial home.
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the following allegations have been made against the petitioners:
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 “fle;j 17/06/2019 ? md;W ehDk; vd; bgw;nwhh; kw;Wk; cwtpdh;fSld; vd; fzth; tPl;ow;F md;W fhiy 10 kzpf;F brd;W vd; fzth; vd; khkdhh; khkpahh; ,lk; vd;id vd; jha; tPl;ow;F mDg;gp tpl;L tf;fPy; nehl;o!; mDg[fpwPh;fns ehd; fh;gkhf ,Ug;gJ bjhpe;nj ,g;go bra;ayhkh vd;id vd; fztUld; thH tpL';fs; vd nfl;ljw;F mth;fs; K%tUk; ngho njtpoah ,dpnky; cdf;F ,';F thH ,lkpy;iy eP tapw;wpy; Rkg;gJ v';fs; thhpR ,y;iy/ kPw[p eP tPl;ow;F cs;ns te;jhs; cd;id xHpj;J fl;otpLnthk; vd;W kpul;odhh;fs;/ mjdhy; ehd; capUf;F gae;J bfhz;L tPl;ow;F ngha;tpl;nlhk;/”
8. Even according to the second respondent, she came to the house of the first accused on 17.06.2019 and on which day, she was abused by the petitioners in filthy language. So the occurrence of abusing in filthy language is said to have been taken place inside the house of the accused. In order to make out the offences under Section 294(b), the accused ought to have committed the offence of uttering obscene words in or near any public place. The allegation that the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant inside the house will not fit into the requirements of Section 294(b) of I.P.C. The rest of the offences viz., Sections 498(A), 506(i) cannot be made out on the basis of few words uttered by the petitioners that they would finish her off, if she dared to enter into the house of the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners had ever committed any threat to the defacto complainant or whether there was any such previous occurrence that already occurred and it 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 had caused a kind of fear or threat in the mind of the second respondent that she might be put to danger by the petitioners and that would risk her life. It is needless to say that the offence under Section 506(i) cannot be made out just by one word 'threat'. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 195, in the case of Mr.S.Selva Kumar Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Keelakarai, Ramanathapuram District. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the complaint would show that it is totally vague in nature. It is no-where stated the said nature of words said to have been used by the petitioner. The offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrassment of Women (amended) Enforcement Act, 2002 have not been made out. Even assuming the petitioner has said something out of rage, it cannot be termed as a threat in the absence of any relevant materials. Even according to the defacto complainant, the petitioner did not come with any arms, he did not man-handle her. On the contrary, the defacto complainant said to have been mentally disturbed by 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 the oral outburst of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Srinivasan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118.
(ii) Rajan Vs. State, rep. By Inspector of police reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 258.
(iii) Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and others Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 642.
(iv) Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (1) CTC 300.
11. Considering the scope of 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code in Srinivasan Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 1118, in paragraph No.11, this Court has held in the following manner:-
“11.In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506 of IPC it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 reputation or property with an intention to cause alarm.”
12. In Rajan Vs. State, rep. By Inspector of police reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 258, after taking note of the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this Court has held in the following manner:-
“10. In a similar case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC in a case in Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 2002 (2) C.C.Cases 320 (P & H), that, Empty threats does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506, IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence, in face no case is made out against the petitioner.
Consequently, FIR No.313, dated 15.07.1999 under Section 406/498-A, IPC of police station, Sadar, Patiala is quashed qua the petitioner only.
11.It is seen even in the instant case, except a vague and bald allegation of criminal intimidation, the defacto complainant has not stated that there was any threat to his life or sought for any police protection. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 offence under Section 506(i), I.P.C is not maintainable.?
13. In Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and others Vs. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 642, this Court, while dealing with the effect of a bald allegation, it has been held as follows:-
19......... Very bald allegation has been made that on enquiry the accused 1 to 3 threatened to kill him. Such a stock version cannot be given much credence at all.?
14. Similar views were also expressed by this Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 (1) CTC 300, wherein it has been held that a mere outburst is not sufficient to bring a case within the mischief of Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.”
9. Since in the case in hand such bald complaint has been given by the accused, no offence under Section 506(i) is made out. For the offence of matrimonial cruelty also, the petitioners cannot be charged on the basis of a single event as per Section 498(A). Cruelty caused to the second respondent should be of such an intensive nature that should drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or endanger her life by herself or demand for 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 dowry. The allegations do not say that the petitioners had ever demanded any dowry from the second respondent. With the bald allegation that she was threatened by the petitioners, I feel no case falling under Section 498(A) of I.P.C can also be made out. When the allegations are so light and bald, it is unnecessary to allow the prosecution to continue the investigation for the above said offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C as against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3. Such exercise will be wasteful of time and in the interest of justice, the powers of this Court should be invoked under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR as against the petitioners / accused 2 &
3. In order to quash the FIR by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it should fit into any of the seven golden principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, as shown under:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the Institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”
10. The facts of this case fit into the above parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Since there are no sufficient materials available to make out a case against the petitioners / accused 2 & 3 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A) & 506(i) of I.P.C., the FIR should be quashed.
11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2019, pending on the file of the first respondent police against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 17.10.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
gsk
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cheyyar,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.19571 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.10625 of 2021
17.10.2022
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis