IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.O.P.No.27163 of 2023 and

Crl.M.P.Nos.18855 and 18856 of 2023

1. K.I.Logesh Krishnan

2. K.Indrani

3. M.Kannan ... Petitionerss

Vs.

1. V.J.Priyanka

2. The State represented by

Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station

Tambaram

Crl.M.P.No.2320/21 on the file J.M., Tambaram

... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS., to call for the records in C.C.No.111/2022, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate-I at Tambaram and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Ms.S.Alagammai

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan

Additional Public Prosecutor for R2

Mr.N.Sivaprakash for R1

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.111 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1^st respondent is the wife of the 1^st petitioner and daughter-in-law of the petitioners 2 and 3. The 1^st respondent had filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and witnesses, passed an order dated 11.10.2021, forwarding the complaint to the 2^nd respondent police with a direction to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and to file a report within a period of two months.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that without any report being filed by the 2^nd respondent police, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.111 of 2022 and issued summons to the petitioners. His further contention is that there are several contradictions in the version of the complainant. In the private complaint, the complainant has made allegations that 10 sovereigns of jewels were taken by the 1^st accused, whereas in the divorce proceedings, she has demanded 40 sovereigns of jewels. Hence, the present petition has been filed for the relief as stated in the opening paragraph.

4. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant submitted that admittedly, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 11.10.2021, had directed the 2^nd respondent police to conduct an enquiry and to file a report within a period of two months and since the report was not filed, the learned Magistrate, based on the materials available, proceeded further and ordered to issue summons to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the Magistrate had directed the police to conduct an enquiry and to file a report, without there being any enquiry report, the learned Magistrate cannot rely on the materials available and exercise the option of issuance of summons. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Jatia Vs. Gian Chand Malick & Others reported in 2024 INSC 142.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2^nd respondent police submitted that admittedly, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 11.10.2021, had directed the 2^nd respondent police to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and to file a report. However, since the parties did not co-operate in the enquiry, the 2^nd respondent was unable to file the enquiry report. The non co-operation on the part of the parties, was duly intimated to the learned Magistrate by a report dated 07.03.2024.

However, he fairly conceded that no report was filed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and thereby, an enquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be conducted.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the 1^st respondent had file