B.Geetha & Ors. v. State by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Peravallore Chennai-822 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.30718/2006Crl.MP.No.1/20061.B.Geetha2.A.Babitha3.K.Balasubramanian4.ArunkumarPetitioners Vs1.State by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Peravallore Chennai-822.IndhumathiRespondents3.Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords in CC.No.6538/2006 on the file of the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai pending disposal against thePetitioners (A3 to A6) and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.M.BalasubramanianFor Respondents:Mr.S.Senthil Murugan-R1Mr.V.Padmanaban, SC-R2ORDER The Petitioners are arrayed as A3 to A6 inCC.No.6538/2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore.2. The 2nd Respondent has filed the private complaintbefore the V Metropolitan Magistrate, which was referred to the 1stRespondent Police under Section 156(3) for investigation andreport. Thereafter, the above complaint was registered inCr.No.2/2006 and was investigated by the 1st Respondent Police andafter investigation filed a report under Section 498A and 406 ofIPC read with Sections 4 an 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Thereupon the above case was taken on file by the ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate in CC.No.6538/2006 and summons were issuedto all the accused for their appearance. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The 1st accused is the husband of the defactocomplainant and the 2nd accused is the mother of the 1st accused andthe petitioners 1 and 2 are the sisters of the 1st accused and thePetitioners 3 and 4 are the brothers of the 1st accused.4. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Petitionersalong with A1 and A2 demanded dowry and when she failed to meet thesaid demand, she was harassed and treated with cruelty. 5. According to the Petitioners, the allegations made inthe complaint do not make out any offence as against them, as theyare vague and uncertain and bereft of vital particulars and if theproceedings are allowed to be continued as against them, it will beonly an abuse of process of law. Further, the said complaint hasbeen filed only as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed bythe 1st accused/husband of the 2nd Respondent in Family Court inOP.No.774/2006.6. It is well settled by a long course of decisions bythe Honourable Supreme Court that for the purpose of exercising itspower under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIRor a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely onthe basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documentsaccompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine thetruthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.7. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Andothers Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others (1988-1-SCC-692), the Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated the sameprinciple and laid down that when a prosecution at the initialstage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the courtis as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facieestablish the offence.8. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan andothers (AIR-1989-SC-1), the Apex Court has laid down that thejurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercisedsparingly and with circumspection and has observed that inexercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark uponan enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely tobe established by evidence or not.9. Keeping the above said principles in mind andconsidering the decisions as referred to herein, let us apply themto the facts of the present case. 10. The allegations contained in the complaint disclosethat the Petitioners along with A1 and A2, the husband and motherin law of the 2nd Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the2nd Respondent and directed her to get the said amount from herfather. It is further stated that as she refused to meet the saiddemand, they started harassing her by using physical violence andforced her to subject herself to illegal demand of the accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persons. That the 1st accused along with A3 and A4 had pledged the2nd Respondent's jewels without her consent and appropriated themoney for their use and in order to cover up the misdeeds, theyhave made wild allegations against her, as if she moved closelywith the male students and chatted with them through E-Mail andexchanged photos. It is further alleged in the complaint that A1along with the other accused have made wild allegations against herthat she was having bonhomie with her male friends and therebytried to bring disrepute to her character and integrity. It isfurther alleged in the complaint that in view of the torture put toher, she suffered abortion on 7.11.2004. 11. The above said allegations are definite and specificagainst each of the Petitioners and A1 and A2, which woulddefinitely constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC and otheroffences as alleged. It could be inferred from the complaint thatthe complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to thematrimonial home had failed and the 1st accused/husband had filedthe divorce petition before the family court. The argument of thelearned counsel for the Petitioners that the complaint is filedonly as a counter blast to the divorce petition cannot be acceptedas divorce petition in the civil court cannot be a ground to quashthe criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Code of CriminalProcedure, as it is well settled that the criminal proceedings areseparate and independent and the pendency of the civil proceedingscannot bring to end the criminal proceedings, even if the samearise out of the same set of facts.12. This court, in the case of Arunkumar Vs. State SubInspector of Police, W31 All Women Police Station, Chennai-16 andanother (2007-2-LW-Crl-814), on similar set of facts andcircumstances, has held that when the allegations are distinct andspecific and there is a prima facie case made out against thePetitioners, no interference could be made by this Court to quashthe proceedings and it is further held as under:-"In the instant case,not only the complaint but alsothe statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC clearlydiscloses that there are specific and definiteallegations leveled against the Petitioner herein thatthe Petitioner has ill treated the defacto complainantcruelly for the purpose of demanding dowry-HonourableSupreme Court has made it crystal clear that only inthe even of allegations of causing insult, makingderogatory remarks and behaving rudely againstinformant and the same not pertaining to dowry demand,then only the offences under Sections 498A or 406 ofIPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are notattracted.There is yet another allegation to the effect that thePetitioner A4 along with other accused viz. A2 and A3demanded Rs.10 lakhs case and also abused and assaultedthe defacto complainant stating that she should not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ come to the matrimonial home without a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- Therefore, Court has not hesitation tohold that there is a prima facie case is made outagainst the Petitioner herein who has been arrayed asA4 in this case for the alleged offences under Section498A IPC and another Sections mentioned in the chargesheet."13. In the case on hand, there are specific anddefinite allegations against the Petitioners that they have treatedthe 2nd Respondent with cruelty and specific overtact has beenattributed against them. The truthfulness or otherwise of the saidallegations can be gone into only at the time of trial. The legalposition is absolutely clear and also well settled by the JudicialAuthorities that the court would not interfere with the criminalproceedings, at this stage.14. In view of the above said reasons, this court is ofthe considered view that the complaint cannot be quashed and hence,the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, theconnected MP is closed. 6.07.2009.Crl.Op.No.30718/2006ARUNAJAGADEESAN, J.After Pronouncement of the order in this Criminal OriginalPetition on.6.7.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner hasprayed this court to direct the court below to dispose of thematter, expeditiously.2. Considering the said submissions of the learned counsel forthe petitioner, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,Chennai is directed to dispose of CC.No.6538/2006, on merits and inaccordance with law, within a period of three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.Srcm Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station.+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Ravichandran, Adovcate SR.29078.Pre Delivery Order inCrl.OP.No.30718/2006Srcm(CO)EU23.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/