Thameemum Absari Begum v. The Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners herein has filed this petition to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thoothukudi, as against the petitioners.

¶2The respondent police received a complaint from the second respondent with the following allegations: The second respondent married the first petitioner's son, namely, Syed Shahus Hameed on 01.02.2004. The first petitioner's son is M.E., degree holder. Both constructed a house in Thoothukudi, thereby, they incurred some debt and hence, both decided to go to Oman Country and they were jointly working in Oman country. While they were in Oman country, some dispute arose between them and thereafter, both the parties patched up the differences. In the said circumstances, the second respondent became pregnant in Oman country and the first accused harassed the second respondent and she returned to Thoothukudi and gave birth to a child on

10.03.2014 and thereafter, they went to Oman country. Again, they were said to have caused cruelty to the second respondent and again, she became pregnant and due to the cruelty caused by the first petitioner and his son and other family members, she left the Oman country and they approached Thoothukudi Jamad and on 22.09.2015, the second respondent went to the house of the first petitioner and his son, namely her husband were said to have assaulted her and thereafter a complaint was made, thereby, criminal proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the second respondent filed a case in M.C.No.40 of 2015, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi for maintenance and filed Domestic Violence Petition in M.C.No.22 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi. Pending the same, the first accused filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of 2016 to dissolve the marriage on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. Pending the same, he married the second petitioner herein and after knowing the same, the second respondent went to the house of the first petitioner and A1, both of them are said to have criminally intimidated her and hence, the present complaint was given in the year 2016. The investigating officer conducted investigation and filed a final report and the same was also taken on file in C.C.No.174 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi.

3.The petitioners are the accused Nos.3 to 6. They filed this petition to quash the C.C.No.174 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi. During the pendency of the quash petition, A6/4th petitioner herein died.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the remaining respondent made the following submissions:

4.1. He invited the attention of this Court to the ingredients of the following portion of the final report: Crl.O.P(Mi)No.3666oofo2021 1tJ vjphp kJiu nf/g[J}iur; nrh;e;j 5 tJ vjphp mg;Jy; k$Pj; 6tJ vjphp Map!h Mfpnahh;fspd; kfshd 4 tJ vjphp fhzpah vd;gtiu ,uz;lhtJ jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;ljhf nfs;tpg;gl;L fle;j 2016 Mk; tUlk; brg;lk;gh; khjk; Kjy; thuj;jpy; thjpak[ ; mtuJ mg;ght[k; 1tJ vjphpapd; tPl;ow;F brd;w nghJ 2tJ vjphp KfkJ ,!;khapy; thjpiag; ghh;j;J eP vjw;F ,';F te;jha; vd; kfdpd; thH;fi; fia kzP ;Lk; bfLf;f te;jpah vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ thjp mjw;F ehd; capUld; ,Uf;Fk; nghnj vg;go vd; fztUf;F ,uz;lhtJ jpUkzk; Kof;fyhk; vd;wjw;F 1tJ vjphpapd; ,uz;lhtJ kidtpahd 4tJ vjphp fhzpah thjpaplk; njtpoah ehd; jhd; bra;aJ c&hFy; cwkPJf;F kidtp eP VjhtJ cwt[Kiw bfhz;lhol;L te;jhy; cd;id cd; FLk;gj;njhL bfhd;W g[ijj;J tpLnthk; vd;W bfhiy kpul;ly; tpLj;Js;shh;/ 5tJ vjphp mg;Jy;k $Pj; thjpiag; ghh;j;J Tjpktns vd; kfs; thH;fi; ff;F VjhtJ ,ila{W bra;jhy; cd;id btl;of; bfhs;s ja';fkhl;nld; vd;W bfhiy kpull; y; tpLj;Js;shh;/ thjp 5tJ vjphp mg;Jyk; $Pj;jplk; c';fs; kfSf;F ,g;gobahU epiyik vd;why; ,g;goj;jhd; ngRtPh;fsh vd;wjw;F 6tJ vjphp Mapc&h gz[ ;lktns te;j tHpna Xo tpL ,y;iybad;why; cd;id moj;nj bfhd;WtpLnthk; vd;W thjpf;F bfhiykpul;ly; tpLj;Js;shh;/ vdnt ,t;tHf;fpd; 1tJ vjphp bra;aJ c&hFy; cwkPJ r-gp/498(A),o494,o294(b),o506(II)oIPCo&o4oofoTNPWHoActo Pageo5oofo9 d; goa[k;. 2tJ vjphp KfkJ ,!;khapy; 498(A), 294(b), 506(II) IPC & 4 of TNPWH Act d; goa[k;. 3tJ vjphp jkPKd; md;rhhp ngfk; 498(A), 294(b), 506(II) IPC & 4 of TNPWH Act; d; goa[k;. 4tJ vjphp fhzpah 294(b), 506(II) IPC d; goa[k;. 5tJ vjphp mg;Jy; k$Pj; 506(II) IPCd; goa[k;. 6tJ vjphp Mapc&h 294(b), 506(II) IPC d; goa[k; jz;of;fg;gl jf;f Fw;wk; g[hpe;Js;shh;fs;/

5.As per the final report, the charge against A4, namely, the second petitioner is under Sections 294 and 506(ii) of IPC, fifth accused under Section 506(ii) of IPC and sixth accused is under Sections 294 and 506(ii) of IPC.

¶6From the above reading of the final report and the contents of the FIR, this Court finds that the offence under Sections 294 and 506(ii) of IPC are not made out. In the FIR as well as the final report there was no mentioning of the date of the alleged occurrence of criminal intimidation and abuse. Even in the FIR there was no allegation against these petitioners. Even though FIR is not an encyclopaedia, the material particulars relating to the criminal intimidation has to be mentioned. The same is absent in the case. From the above, it is clear that the above accused are falsely implicated in this case.

7.From the above averment, the offence under Sections 294 and 506(ii) of IPC are not made out. Section 294(b) of IPC is concerned, the same has not occurred in the public place and Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,in the case of Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2020 8 SCC 811. no assault was made, which was material ingredients of Section 506(ii) of IPC. Hence, this Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioners and the continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 174 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Thoothukudi, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

13.12.2023 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PJL/sbn To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thuthukudi.

¶2The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN,J. PJL/sbn Crl.O.P(MD).No.3666 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.2035 and 2037 of 2021

13.12.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.2035 and 2037 of 2021 1. Thameemun Absari Begum 2. A.Kamarul Haniya @ Haniya 3. Abdul Majeed 4. S.Ayisha Beevi @ Aisha ... Petitioners/Accused 3 to 6 Vs. 1. State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi. (In Crime No.17 of 2016) .. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Jibriya Begam .. 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the charge sheet in C.C.No.174 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Thoothukudi and quash the same in respect of the petitioners. For Petitioners :Mr.M.Mohamed Sherbudeen For Respondents :Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R1 : M/s.D.Saranya, Legal-Aid-Counsel for R2