Madras High Court
Raguvaran vs The State Rep By on 11 November, 2022
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.9849 and 9850 of 2018
1.Raguvaran
2.Samutthiravalli
3.Veerapandi ... Petitioners/Accused No.1to3
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All women Police Station,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
(in Crime No.14 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant
2.Thenmozhi ... Respondent/Defacto complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records relating to C.C.No.199 of 2018 on the file of the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018
Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muralikumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthikumar, - for R1
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R2 : M/s.Benazir Begam
ORDER
This Quash Petition has been filed by A1 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. C.C.No.199 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
2.The second respondent gave a complaint before the first respondent police on the ground that she fell in love with the first petitioner in the year 2008 and the first petitioner in the guise of marrying the second respondent had repeated sexual intercourse with the second respondent. This took place till the year 2017. Thereafter, the first petitioner started evading the second respondent. When this was questioned, the petitioners are said to have intimidated the second respondent. Based on this complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.14 of 2017 by the first respondent.
2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018
3.Investigation was taken up and final report was filed before the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.199 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 493 and 506(i)IPC. The process was issued as against all the three accused persons and aggrieved by the same, the present quash petition is filed before this Court.
4.Heard Mr.A.Muralikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Sakthikumar, learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and M/s.Benazir Begam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
5.The short point that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the Court below can take cognizance of the final report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 493 IPC.
6.Section 493 IPC falls under Chapter XX of IPC. For all those offence which falls under Chapter XX, only the complaint can be filed as per Section 198 Cr.P.C. The complaint as contemplated under Section 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018 198 Cr.P.C is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the procedure under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 493 IPC. Hence, the cognizance for the offence under Section 493 IPC taken by the Court below based on the final report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., is illegal and straight-away the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court.
7.Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is concerned, it is seen from the statements recorded from the witnesses that there was merely a oral threat. In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation empty threats by themselves do not make out an offence, unless there is material to show that a threat is a real one. Useful reference can be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vikram Johar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2019(3)MLJ(Crl.)295. It is therefore, clear that the cognizance taken by the Court below for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is also not sustainable.
4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018
8.In view of the above discussion, the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of Court and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No. C.C.No.199 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, is hereby quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.11.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Ns To
1.The Principal District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
2. The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Ns CRL.O.P.(MD)No.21302 of 2018 and CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.9849 and 9850 of 2018 11.11.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis