Section 482 CrPC quashing is unwarranted where complaint and witness statements disclose prima facie involvement.

The de facto complainant alleged that Accused No. 1, her maternal uncle’s son, repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, procured or compelled her to consume tablets resulting in abortions, and subsequently refused to marry her.

When she approached his family members—Accused Nos. 2 to 6, who are the petitioners in the present proceedings—for intervention, they allegedly abused her, refused to support the proposed marriage, and drove her away.

The police initially registered Crime No.17 of 2020 for offences under Sections 294(b), 417 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The petitioners, being Accused Nos.2 to 6, invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings in S.C. No.37 of 2023 pending before the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.

Whether the complaint, witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, and other materials disclosed prima facie involvement of Accused Nos.2 to 6 in the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings against Accused Nos.2 to 6 at the pre-trial stage.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while recognising that such jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised to determine the truth or falsity of disputed allegations at the threshold.

The Court considered the prosecution provisions under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 312 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, particularly the allegation that Accused Nos.2 to 6 harassed and abused the complainant when she sought their intervention concerning the proposed marriage.

The governing principle was that, in a petition for quashing, the Court must examine whether the materials disclose a prima facie case, and not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or decide the ultimate guilt of the accused.

The Court found that the complainant’s complaint and statement specifically attributed overt acts to Accused Nos.2 to 6, alleging that they abused her, rejected the proposed marriage, and drove her out of the accused family’s house.

The Court also noted that the complainant and other witnesses had referred to the petitioners’ involvement in their statements.

Applying the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that these materials were sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Whether the allegations were ultimately true was a matter for trial and could not be determined in the quashing proceedings.

It held that prima facie materials existed to proceed against Accused Nos.2 to 6 and that the case did not warrant exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the proceedings in S.C. No.37 of 2023 before the Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, were allowed to continue.