Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked to quash criminal proceedings involving disputed questions of fact that require a full-fledged trial to establish, specifically where prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences are present in the final report.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Prologue:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the final report filed in C.C.No.1496 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai. The petitioner stands arrayed as the sole accused for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506(i) IPC.

2. The present case projects a familiar yet delicate intersection between disputed marital claims, allegations of emotional exploitation, and the limited scope of interference by this Court at the stage of cognizance. While the petitioner seeks to portray the entire prosecution as a fabricated attempt to blackmail him and obstruct his proposed marriage with another woman, the prosecution and the defacto complainant contend that the petitioner, after having entered into a marital relationship with the second respondent, abandoned and threatened her while suppressing the said relationship.

3. The issue that therefore arises for consideration is not whether the petitioner would ultimately be convicted, but whether the materials collected during investigation disclose sufficient prima facie ingredients warranting continuation of the criminal prosecution. The distinction between a case fit for acquittal after trial and a case deserving quashment at threshold must be scrupulously maintained.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the second respondent / defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 16.09.2023 alleging that the petitioner had married her on 25.01.2021 at Koodal Azhagar Temple, Madurai, in the presence of elders and relatives.

5. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that after the said marriage, the petitioner received jewels weighing about five sovereigns from the defacto complainant and subsequently subjected her to cruelty and harassment. According to the prosecution, while the marital relationship was subsisting, the petitioner allegedly suppressed the earlier marriage and attempted to marry another woman by distributing invitation cards.

6. The complaint further discloses that when the defacto complainant questioned the conduct of the petitioner, he allegedly intimidated her with threats, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 506(i) IPC.

7. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2023 for offences under Sections 498-A and 506(i) IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 1496 of 2024.

Grounds for quash:

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the entire prosecution is false, malicious and instituted solely with an intention to extort money from the petitioner.

9. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is aged about 29 years whereas the defacto complainant is more than 43 years old and had already married one Antony Samy and had children through the said marriage.

(ii) The defacto complainant was working as a supplier in the same hotel in which the petitioner was employed as a cashier and taking advantage of workplace acquaintance, she foisted a false complaint for illegal enrichment.

(iii) There is absolutely no documentary proof to establish the alleged marriage said to have taken place at Koodal Azhagar Temple on 25.01.2021.

(iv) The petitioner had obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the temple authorities and the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department allegedly clarified that no marriage had taken place in the temple on the relevant date.

(v) On the date of the alleged marriage, the petitioner was allegedly attending another marriage function and photographs are said to substantiate his presence else