High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025and Crl.MP.Nos.6296 & 6297 of 20251.Arul Selvi2.Balambigai... PetitionersVs.1.The State rep byThe Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Sirkali,Mayiladuthurai District.Crime No.30 of 2024.2.Sangeetha.. RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.73 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District and quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025For Petitioners : Mr. G.PugazhenthiFor R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with the first petitioner, harassed the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and demanded a huge dowry from her. It is further alleged that the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home and was threatened by the first petitioner to give her consent for a divorce. Hence, the complaint.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire family members has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025the second respondent. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners that would attract the ingredients of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, it is submitted that the in-laws of the second respondent are living separately and no involvement whatsoever in the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent herein.4. Heard the learned cousel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.5. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2024 for the offences under Sections Sections 294(b), 498(A) 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.73 of 2025 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 20256. A perusal of the records reveals that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners which attract the offences under Sections294(b), 498(A) 506(i) of IPC.7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8.Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 11.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025time of passing judgment. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 01.04.2025drlTo1.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Sirkali,Mayiladuthurai District.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,drlCrl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025and Crl.MP.Nos.6296 & 6297 of 202501.04.2025Page 9 of 9

Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025and Crl.MP.Nos.6296 & 6297 of 20251.Arul Selvi2.Balambigai... PetitionersVs.1.The State rep byThe Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Sirkali,Mayiladuthurai District.Crime No.30 of 2024.2.Sangeetha.. RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.73 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District and quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025For Petitioners : Mr. G.PugazhenthiFor R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDERThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with the first petitioner, harassed the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and demanded a huge dowry from her. It is further alleged that the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home and was threatened by the first petitioner to give her consent for a divorce. Hence, the complaint.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire family members has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025the second respondent. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners that would attract the ingredients of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, it is submitted that the in-laws of the second respondent are living separately and no involvement whatsoever in the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent herein.4. Heard the learned cousel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Perused the materials available on record.5. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2024 for the offences under Sections Sections 294(b), 498(A) 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.73 of 2025 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 20256. A perusal of the records reveals that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners which attract the offences under Sections294(b), 498(A) 506(i) of IPC.7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8.Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 11.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioners, the personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025time of passing judgment. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 01.04.2025drlTo1.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Sirkali,Mayiladuthurai District.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,drlCrl.O.P.No. 9534 of 2025and Crl.MP.Nos.6296 & 6297 of 202501.04.2025Page 9 of 9