The court emphasized the importance of establishing the elements of alleged offences and the need for magistrates to consider relevant materials before issuing orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022 and quash the first information report registered by the first respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in Crime No.325 of 2022 and to quash the same.

2. The FIR in Crime No.325 of 2022 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC, on the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur in C.M.P.No.855 of 2022, that the first respondent shall investigate the complaint dated 17.11.2021 and register an FIR and file a report.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as A3. He is the father of the first accused. The second accused is the sister of the first accused. The first accused got married with the son of the defacto complainant and it was an arranged marriage. After their marriage, they went to U.S.A and later to Canada. Due to their wedlock, they also gave birth to a child. There was misunderstanding between them and as such they got separated. The first accused returned to India to see her parents viz, the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent and his wife refused to accept the first accused in their house, due to which, the first accused lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Ambattur and she was issued CSR in CSR No.422 of 2021. In fact, the first accused also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP No.556 of 2021 and it is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. Thereafter, she also filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.No.14 of 2022 and it is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur.

4. While being so, the second respondent filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the said petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, directed the first respondent to register an FIR and investigate the same and file a final report.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petition seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C has been accompanied with the affidavit in support of this petition. The complaint did not even whisper about the name of the petitioner. Whereas, in the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner herein entered into the house of the second respondent along with A1 and A2. That apart, in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, the date of which they entered into the house is mentioned as 17.11.2012 instead of 17.11.2021. Further, nowhere the date of alleged occurrence has been mentioned neither in the petition nor in the affidavit filed by the second respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the FIR registered in Crime No.325 of 2022 and the same was withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Suresh Kankra Vs. State of U.P. And others” in “Crl.A.No.52 of 2022” dated 07.01.2022, wherein held that the Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C it being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken not of.

6. A perusal of the complaint revealed that the first accused is the wife of the second respondent's son. They got married and went to U.S.A and later to Canada. Thereafter, they got separated due to misunderstanding and the first accused returned to India. When the first accused along with her parents went to the second respondent's house to pacify the issues, there was a quarrel between them. When the daughterin- law of the second respondent enters into her matrimonial home, it would not amount to trespass.