R. JAYAPRAKASSH AND ORS. Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTORS OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THALLAKULAM, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners against whom a complaint has been preferred by one Nagalakshmi have come forward with the instant petition to quash the investigation. The first petitioner is the husband of the complainant Nagalakshmi. Petitioners 2 and 3 are sisters of the first petitioner. The fourth petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. The fifth and sixth petitioners are the brothers of the first petitioner. The first petitioner married the complainant Nagalakshmi on 19.06.1996. According to him, Nagalakshmi lived with him for few days and left for her parents' house. she did not join him later and therefore, the first petitioner filed O.P.No.55 of 1998 before the Family Court, Madras for restitution of the conjugal rights The Family Court passed orders on 13.07.1998 directing Nagalakshmi to restore all the comforts of the married life to the first petitioner. But Nagalakshmi continued to desert him on 22.8 1999, the first petitioner's father died. On 17.11.1999, the sixth petitioner was taken to the office of the District Crime Brach on a complaint preferred by Nagalakshmi on 20.10.1999. The sixth petitioner was illegally detained in the office of the District Crime Branch. Madras and a sum of Rs.25.000/ - obtained by force from him and a letter was also obtained that the petitioners would pay a balance of Rs.33.000/ - and gold jewels weighing about 25 sovereigns to Nagalakshmi on or before 04.12.1999. Later, Nagalakshmi preferred a complaint to the All Women Police Station. Thallakulam on 29.01.2000 alleging that the petitioners herein demanded down from her. The Inspector of Police. Thallakulam took the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.5of 2000 under Sections 498A and 406 I.PC. According to the petitioners the complaint contains false allegations, the complaint is vague and the matter is barred by limitation, because the complaint had been preferred more than three years after the alleged occurrence.

(2.) HEARD both the sides The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is vague, in that though Nagalaksluni had stated that she married the first petitioner on 9.06.1996 and there was a dowry demand, but in view of the subsequent proceedings before the Family Court, which indicates that Nagalakshmi neither lived with her husband, there would have been no such demand and the complaint is vague in not giving any date of demand of dowry. Even admitting that there had been a dowry demand prior to the marriage, which took place on 19.06.1996 the complaint preferred on 29.1.2000 is barred by limitation.

(3.) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the investigation can be quashed at the threshold? In Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. ( : 1989 Cri. L.J. 1013), a Full Bench consisting of seven Judges of the Allahabad High Court has held that the power of police to investigate into a report which discloses commission of cognisable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Allahabad High Court had gone to extent of holding that the High Court has no inherent power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. either when no offence is disclosed in the first information powers of the Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice come into play only after the charge sheet has been filed in Court and not during investigation which may even be illegal and unauthorised, and that if the High Court is convinced that the power of arrest by a police officer will be exercised wrongly or mala fide in violation of S. 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the police officer from misusing his legal power.