IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.O.P.No.23501 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.12885 of 2021 B.Sandeep ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police station, Tambaram, Chennai. (Crime No.8 of 2021)

2. Priyanka ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.8 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same with regard to the petitioner.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent/the Inspector of Police, W-35, All Women Police station, Tambaram, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent / defacto complainant were in love for two years and the petitioner assured to marry the 2^nd respondent. They also started living together and on 18.01.2021, the petitioner got married to the 2^nd respondent. In this circumstance, on 19.01.2021 the 2^nd respondent came to know that the petitioner has already got married with another girl. Since the petitioner had suppressed the above fact and living together with the 2^nd respondent, she has lodged the complaint before the respondent Police and on the basis of which, a case has been registered under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of I.P.C., 3. Heard Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent Police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made by the 2^nd petitioner are false and there are no prima facie materials to make out a case against the petitioner under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of I.P.C. The 2^nd respondent being a tenant of the petitioner's father's house, she had already known about the marital status of the petitioner and inspite of the same, the 2^nd respondent had chosen to file a false complaint.

5. The records would show that the manner in which the 2^nd respondent has been cheated by the petitioner. This is not a case which has been registered against the petitioner without any basic material. Even according to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent is already known to him and no motive is stated against the 2^nd respondent to give false case against the petitioner. Since sufficient materials are available to make out a case against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 506 (1) of I.P.C., I do not feel, it is a proper case where the court has to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

6. At the threshold stage of the case itself, the Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry and it is for the prosecution to conduct a thorough investigation to unravel the truth. In order to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., there should be some specific circumstance or cause as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843. In the said Judgment, it is held as under:

"15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:-

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Proce