CRL OP/30002/2026 of Sunandhini Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 24 of 2026 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant married Accused No.1 on 22.04.2024 at Madurai, and their marriage was registered on 10.05.2024. At the time of marriage, she was allegedly given 25 sovereigns of gold and household articles worth Rs.5 lakhs by her parents as Sridhana, while Accused No.1 received 3 sovereigns of gold chain and 1 sovereign of gold ring from her brothers as gifts. It is further alleged that, after the de facto complainant became pregnant in July 2024, Accused No.1 started demanding dowry and subjecting her to mental and physical harassment. Due to her ill health, she was taken to her parental home at Thondamuthur, Coimbatore. The de facto complainant further alleged that Accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded additional dowry in the form of 200 sovereigns of gold jewellery, an Audi car and immovable properties at the instigation of Accused Nos.4 and 5. She subsequently underwent treatment for kidney stones at Apollo Hospital,

Madurai, where laser treatment was performed on 29.10.2024. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 failed to resume the matrimonial relationship and continued to harass her and her family through phone calls, messages and social media, while making further dowry demands. Based on the complaint, FIR in Crime No. 24 of 2026 was registered as against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 85 and 316(2) of BNS, 2023 and section 4 of Dowry Prohobition Act, 1961.

3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

4. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The

State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. ....................

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; ..............

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; .............

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

7. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.24 of 2026.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police AWPS Police Station, Periyanaickenpalayam, Crime No.24 of 2026.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 30002 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.19993 of 2026 14-10-2026