Dismissed

M.Venkatesan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Nov 2014CRL OP/30076/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC. The Court held that the timing of the complaint relative to civil divorce proceedings is not a ground for quashing at the threshold stage.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.22 of 2014 was dismissed; criminal original petition dismissed.

M.Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 13.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.30076 of 2014 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

1.M.Venkatesan 2.Kannammal

¶8

.. Vs

¶9

Petitioners

¶10

1.State:Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore.

¶11

2.P.Gowri .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.22 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners :Mr.A.Jayaraman For R.1 :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Seeking to quash the F.I.R., in Crime No.22 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent, the petitioners who are the accused in this case have come up with this petition. The said case has been registered for offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C.

¶16

2.This petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present case has been registered after the initiation of the divorce proceedings before the Civil Court. He would further submit that the allegations in the complaint are false.

¶18

4.In my considered opinion, whether the said case has been instituted only after the matrimonial proceedings before the Civil Court or not, is a matter to be gone into only by the respondent police. It may be true that the complaint was lodged after the institution of the divorce proceedings before the Civil Court to resolve the matrimonial dispute. However, it is no ground to quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the F.I.R. Thus, I do not find any merit at all to quash the

¶19

F.I.R., at its threshold. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thudiyalur, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP No.30076 of 2014
kv(co)
pmk.8.12.2014

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Venkatesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkatesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K.S.Anvardeen Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Sumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Selvam Vs Kaurppiah @ Gandhi

Rajadurai Vs P.Ramarathina

Mr.Benedict Saraben Vs the Inspector of Police

Noble Thomas Vs the Inspector of Police