BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
02. 07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16727 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 1.Adhavan 2.Vasumathi 3.Izhamparuthi 4.Vanmathi 5.jayaraj ... Petitioners / Accused No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 Vs. 1.The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin, (In Crime No.12 of 2003) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Malarvizhi ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Tuticorin and quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioners are concerned. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Sr.Counsel For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan G.A.(Crl.side) for R1 For Respondent-2 : Mr.Muthu Geethaiyan for Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan :ORDER
The Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.212 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Tuticorin.
2. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case has been registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.2 of 2013, for an offence under Sections 323, 498-A, and 506(i) IPC., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner is the husband. The other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant. After investigation, a charge sheet has also been filed before the learned J.M.No.2, Tuticorin, which was taken on file in C.C.No.212 of 2004 and the same is still pending for trial.
3. The present application to quash the proceedings has been filed in the year 2011 and taken up for hearing. Mr.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the provisions under Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been grossly abused in the present proceedings. The learned counsel pointed out that there were disputes between the Company Law Board in 2002, where the 1st petitioner, the husband of the defaco complainant, raised the disputes in the Company where the defafto complainant and her father were Directors. He further pointed out that in the same year, the defaco complainant filed an application before the District Court, Tuticorin under Mental Health Act describing him as mentally ill person and when these proceedings were pending, the defacto complainant has come up with the present allegation only to wreck vengeance against the family members of the 5th petitioner. The learned counsel traversed through the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the charge sheet. He relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010 (7) SCC667 where the Supreme Court has lamented upon exaggerated version of small incidents, especially, against husband relatives. He also relied on an yet another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.435-536 of 2014 wherein, cruelty as defined under Sec.498-A has been dealt with.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Muthu Geethaiyan, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry on the evidence invoking jurisdiction under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C., He pointed out that there are evidence to the occurrence and also medical evidence to show that the defacto complainant was assaulted on the date of occurrence. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on an unreported Jugment of this Court in Cr.R.C.(MD)No.79 of 2005, wherein the revision filed by the the 6th accused in the present case was dismissed by this Court on the ground that there are materials against the said accused.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who would submit that the trial is pending and this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The charges against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 323, 506(ii) of IPC., and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The petitioners 2 and 4 are sister-in-law and 3 is the brother- in-law, the 5th petitioner is the maternal uncle of the 1st petitioner. According to the First Information Report, the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law. There was also a dowry demand not only by the husband and mother-in-law but also by brother and sister in law and also by paternal uncle. It is alleged that on 26.07.2013 at 8.30 p.m., the defaco complainant was taken to her mother-in-law's house along with some relatives for a peace talk and at that time, the brother and sister-in-laws and the paternal uncle joined and subjected her for cruelty and demanded dowry. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner had slapped her on a cheek and bidden on her right hand and other petitioners had beaten her with hands. A statement of Dr.Sivakumar was recorded by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station. He would state that on 26.07.2013 at 11.55 p.m., she had examined one Malarvizhi, the defaco complainant, alleged to have beaten by her husband and his relatives. She had found two injuries both are found simple in nature. According to the Investigating Officer, the defacto complainant appeared before her on 26.07.2003 at 11.15 p.m., and gave the complaint. Admittedly, there was dispute before the Company Law Board between the 1st petitioner and the father of the defacto complainant in respect of appointment of one Karal Marx, as Director and removal of the 1st petitioner. It is also admitted that the defaco complainant has initiated the proceedings under the Mental Health Act. In any event, the allegations are to the effect that on the particular day, there was an incident and the complaint has been given immediately and the defaco complainant was also examined by a Doctor. One of the accused person had also failed in his attempt to discharge from the charges in C.C.No.212 of 2004. The facts and circumstances of the case relied on by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter at this juncture and interfere with the trial. In any event, since the case is pending from 2004, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same at the earliest point of time.
8. In the result, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed with a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Tuticorin 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin,