Dismissed

S.Nagarajan v. N.Sujatha

Madras HC11 Nov 2014CRL OP/30195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that while considering such petitions, the Magistrate may consider the Protection Officer's report, but it is not mandatory.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Nagarajan Vs N.Sujatha — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 11.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.30195 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

S.Nagarajan ..Petitioner/Respondent Vs N.Sujatha ..Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in respect of M.P.No.1678 of 2012 on the fie of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondent :Mr.V.Nithyananda ORDER

¶7

Seeking to quash the case in M.P.No.1678 of 2012 on the fie of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner who is the respondent in the said case has come up with this petition. The respondent herein who happens to be the wife of the petitioner is the complainant. The respondent has initiated the said proceedings seeking certain reliefs as provided under the Act.

¶8

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶9

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court was not right in taking the case on file for enquiry in the absence of any report from the Protection Officer under the said Act.

¶10

4.In my considered opinion, as per the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while considering the petition filed under the said Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate may take into consideration of the report of the Protection Officer, but, it is not mandatory. In such view of the matter, the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Thus, I do not find any reason https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to interfere with the proceedings of the trial Court. Therefore,

¶11

the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Egmore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K. Samidurai, Advocate SR.53730
+ 1 cc to M/s. Star Associates, Advocate SR.53430
Crl.OP No.30195 of 2012
CNR(CO)
Eu 20.11.14

¶13

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

S.Nagarajan v. N.Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nagarajan v. N.Sujatha

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

R.Rashidhunnishaa Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.S.Rajasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Ponnuthaai Vs D.Sabitha IAS

M.Kasinathan Vs P.Murugaiyan

Babu Rajendran Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Saraswathi, Age 36 Vs State Rep by Its