Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Ilangovan – Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL.O.P.No. 11551 of 2015
Decided On : 10-06-2015
Quash - Amended charge sheet - Section 173[a] Cr.P.C - Section 498A, 406 IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 307, 507, 325, 326 IPC - The court quashed the amended final report and directed the trial court to consider framing a charge under Section 325 or 326 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the amended charge sheet filed in SC.No.121 of 2014, which was based on a complaint of dowry demand and cruelty against the petitioner. The court found that the evidence did not support the charge under Section 307 IPC and quashed the amended final report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish the intention to commit murder as required for a charge under Section 307 IPC. It directed the trial court to consider framing a charge under Section 325 or 326 IPC based on the medical evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to support the charge under Section 307 IPC and the feasibility of framing a charge under Section 325 or 326 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence did not demonstrate the intention to commit murder required for a charge under Section 307 IPC. It directed the trial court to consider framing a charge under Section 325 or 326 IPC based on the medical evidence.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the amended final report was allowed, and the trial court was directed to consider framing a charge under Section 325 or 326 IPC.
1. Seeking to quash the amended charge sheet filed in SC.No.121 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chennai.
2. Heard Mr.M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. The 1st accused who is the petitioner herein is seeking to quash the amended final report that has been filed by the respondent police, pursuant to a direction from this Court for further investigation under Section 173[a] Cr.P.C. It may be necessary to narrate the brief history of the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.
4. Ilangovan [petitioner/1st accused] got married to Loganayagi [defacto complainant] on 13.06.1985. It is alleged by Loganayagi that her husband and his relatives demanded more and more dowry from her and subjected her to untold cruelty. It is alleged by Loganayagi that on 26.03.1992, Ilangovan approached her in the guise of wanting to have sex with her and he caused tear to her private part with a blade.
5. It may be relevant to state that no complaint was lodged by Loganayagi immediately. After Ilangovan filed a petition for divorce, Loganayagi lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 25.11.1993 making allegations of dowry demand and cruelty against his family members. Based on the complaint given by Loganayagi, the respondent police filed a complaint in Crime No.18 of 1993 for the offences under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against Ilangovan and seven others.
6. The police completed the investigation and filed a Final Report before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet for the offences under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act which was taken on file as C.C.No.1121 of 1995. Loganayagi was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police and therefore, she approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.42176 of 2003 for altering the penal provisions to Section 307 and 507 IPC. This Court by order dated 24.04.2004 in Crl.O.P.No.42176 of 2003 directed the Investigating Officer to file an application under Section 173[8] Cr.P.C before the Trial Court for further investigation.
7. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.42176 of 2003, the Investigating Officer filed an application under Section 173[8] Cr.P.C for further investigation and he examined Dr.Mangayarkarasi who gave treatment to Loganayagi on 26.03.1992. He also collected the treatment details from Dr.Mangayarkarasi. Thus the Investigating Officer has collected materials to show that Loganayagi sustained injuries on her private parts on 26.03.1992 and she was treated by Dr.Mangayarkarasi. This evidence simpliciter cannot lead to the interference that there was an attempt on the life of Loganayagi. Therefore, the Investigating Officer took steps to record the statement of Loganayagi and she consistently refused to give any statement. He even attempted to have her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. But Loganayagi did not co-operate. This is what the Investigating Officer has stated in the amended Final Report :
"On 14.07.2006, 24.07.2006, 10.01.2007, 03.10.2007, 12.05.2008, 04.08.2009, 28.11.2010 and 06.12.2010, subpeona sent to this complainant for recording statement of this witness u/s 164 Cr.P.C before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. After receiving the subpeona she came to the Court and she refused to give the 164 Cr.P.C statement before the above said court.
After getting Deputy Director of Prosecution's opinion I altered the section and included 506[ii], 307 IPC in addition to already filed charge sheet in C.C.No.509/93 before this Hon'ble Court.”
8. Despite the above, the Investigating Officer filed an amended Final Report on 02.05.2011 before the learned Magistrate and the entire case has now been committed to the Court of Sessions and is now pending trial in SC.No.121 of 2014 before
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
