The Madras High Court exercised its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings in a criminal case filed against the petitioner. The reasons given for the same were two folded, firstly, the suit was barred by the period of limitation and, secondly, uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same did not disclose the commission of any offence and no case was being made out against the accused.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner (also the 2nd accused) filed the current petition to call for the records of Crime No. 12 of 2019 pending on the file of the police for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 323 of the IPC, 66 of the I.T. Act and 506(i) of the IPC. The defacto complainant’s daughter named Rufina was married to the petitioner’s son Xavier. The petitioner was the 2nd accused and his son was the 1st accused in this case.
After the marriage, Rufina was treated badly and harassed by the accused. She could not take any action since these incidents happened in India while she shifted to the U.K. after her marriage. She alleged that the accused made some sort of video to threaten her. As per the second respondent (Rufina’s father), the marriage was convened only for the purpose of getting the United Kingdom VISA for the first accused.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is the mother of the first accused was being harassed by the second respondent unnecessarily by making false complaints; the complaint itself is barred by limitation in view of the one and only allegation made against the petitioner relates to the year 2016; the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000; among the above penal provisions, the maximum period of punishment is three years and as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., on the date of the complaint itself, it is barred by limitation; in fact, the second respondent's daughter and the first accused have got consent divorce between themselves at the Family Court, Bromley; subsequent to that, this complaint has been given just to give mental agony to the petitioner and the first accused; there is no ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 498(A) and the daughter of the second respondent never lived at Chennai subsequent to her marriage with the first accused and the allegations are totally false.
Contention of the Government Advocate/Respondents:
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that only if a detailed investigation is allowed to be done, the real facts would come to light; since the portion of the allegations that has been made against the petitioner was said to have occurred at Chennai, the complaint has been registered; since there are sufficient ingredients to make out a case against this petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A), the investigation should be done; so far as the allegations of matrimonial cruelty is concerned, it is a continuing offence and hence the question of limitation would not arise.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is the mother of the first accused was being harassed by the second respondent unnecessarily by making false complaints; the complaint itself is barred by limitation in view of the one and only allegation made against the petitioner relates to the year 2016; the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000; among the above penal provisions, the maximum period of punishment is three years and as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., on the date of the complaint itself, it is barred by limitation; in fact, the second respondent's daughter and the first accused have got consent divorce between themselves at the Family Court, Bromley; subsequent to that, this complaint has been given just to give mental agony to the petitioner and the first accused; there is no ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 498(A) and the daughter of the second respondent never lived at Chennai subsequent to her marriage with the first accused and the allegations are totally false.
Contention of the Government Advocate/Respondents:
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that only if a detailed investigation is allowed to be done, the real facts would come to light; since the portion of the allegations that has been made against the petitioner was said to have occurred at Chennai, the complaint has been registered; since there are sufficient ingredients to make out a case against this petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A), the investigation should be done; so far as the allegations of matrimonial cruelty is concerned, it is a continuing offence and hence the question of limitation would not arise.
The court finally held that the allegations made by Rufina are difficult to believe. She would not have married the first accused in the first place if something life threatening was implicated on her before the marriage. When Rufina filed a complaint before the National Commission for Women against the first accused, his passport was revoked. However, he got his passport back after the enquiry. The records would sufficiently show that the complaint given in India is an offshoot of the strained relationship between the couple and in which, the mother of the first accused is also dragged unnecessarily.
As held in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, the court reiterated that 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, no purpose will be served to allow the investigation to be continued. Since the allegations in the FIR were self-failing in the present case, the Court exercised its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in order to meet the ends of justice.
Decision of the Court:
The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 were quashed in so far as this petitioner was concerned and the investigation was allowed to go on as against the other accused.
Case Title: E. Betsy vs The State rep. by Inspector of Police and anr.
Coram: Justice R.N. Manjula
Case No.: Crl. O.P. No. 34594 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Suresh Babu
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. A. Gopinath (For R1), Mr. B. Kumarasamy (For R2)
Read Judgment ;
0 Comments