Usha Rani and Others vs The State and Others

P.N. Prakash, J—This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 4 of 2015 dated 22.04.2015 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Adayar, Chennai.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is seen that the second respondent viz., S. Charulatha has approached the W6, Ayanavaram, All Women Police Station and lodged a complaint against the petitioners and during the course of enquiry, it is stated that the second petitioner had agreed to settle the matrimonial dispute with his wife and therefore, the complaint was not pursued. Since the petitioner did not reunite with the second respondent, the second respondent was forced to file a fresh complaint on 15.01.2015 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar, which was enquired into in CSR. No. 7 of 2015. The second respondent, S. Charulatha approached this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 3137 of 2015 to arraying W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar and W6, Ayanavaram, All Women Police Station and this Court directed both the police stations to conduct enquiry and if any cognizable offence is made out, further direction was given to take action in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, (2013) 12 AD 209 : AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) CriLJ 470 : (2013) 6 CTC 353 : (2014) 1 JCC 1 : (2013) 14 JT 399 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 979 : (2013) 13 SCALE 559 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCJ 68 . As per the order of this Court dated 10.02.2015 in Crl. O.P. No. 3731 of 2015, W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar has registered the present case on 22.04.2015.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant/second respondent had preferred a false complaint dated 13.09.2014 before the W6, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram and again a fresh complaint dated 15.01.2015 has been given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar and so the present FIR is an abuse of process of law.

I am unable to agree with the submission made by the petitioner because the defacto complainant first approached the Ayyanavaram Police Station. When the second petitioner undertook to live with her and so the complaint was closed. After giving a false assurance the 2nd petitioner went back and so the defacto complainant had to necessarily approach the Police again. Hence, the second respondent has approached the W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar and lodged a complaint dated 15.01.2015. The defacto complainant has not suppressed any fact inasmuch as even in Crl. O.P. No. 3731 of 2015, she has impleaded both the Police Stations viz., W19 All Women Police Station, Adayar and W6, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W19, All Women Police Station, Adayar has not registered the complaint after enquiry by the Social Welfare Officer. In matrimonial complaints, the police would normally refer the complaint for enquiry by the social welfare officer and only thereafter the complaint will be registered. But in this case, the police initially gave CSR. No. 7 of 2015 and only after the direction issued by this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 3731 of 2015 dated 10.02.2015, alleging inaction on the part of the police, that F.I.R. was registered. Therefore, the police cannot be totally blamed for registering the F.I.R. as per the order of this Court.

On a reading of the FIR, it reveals that there are sufficient allegations for a full fledged investigation and so the FIR cannot be quashed, since it does not satisfy the parameters laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp .

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.