Remanded

B.Murugadoss v. Chithra

Madras HC9 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/5579/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed an O.P. under Section 482 CrPC to quash Magistrate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court held the DV act is civil in nature and the disputing whether petitioners are necessary parties cannot be decided by this court now. The Order directs the Magistrate to first decide the issue of necessity of party presence before passing any orde

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Judicial Magistrate to decide whether the petitioners are necessary parties before him before passing any orders.

B.Murugadoss Vs Chithra — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.04.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5579 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1&2 of 2014

1.B.Murugadoss

2.Balagurusamy Naidu

3.B.Rengammal

4.B.Subbu @ Subbulakshmi

¶10

... Petitioners / Respondents 1 to 4

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

Chithra ... Respondent / Petitioner

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.7033 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.7033 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same.

¶17

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the first Petitioner is the husband of the complainant and others are not responsible in a proceedings under the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, however, they are being dragged on to the Court.

¶18

The only grievance of the petitioners is that they are unnecessarily harassed. However, the proceedings under the said Act is civil in nature. The learned Magistrate is the competent authority to decide whether the petitioners are necessary party before him. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide whether the petitioners are necessary party before him, before passing any orders. The appearance of the petitioners, except the first petitioner/husband of the defacto complainant, is dispensed with, unless they are so required by the Magistrate, who give specific direction to the petitioners to appear before him for enquiry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul

¶25

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1cc to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate SR.No.21981

¶26

MPK

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5579 of 2014 09.04.2014

¶28

PA/23.04.2014/1P/4C

B.Murugadoss v. Chithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Murugadoss v. Chithra

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

Seenivasan Vs the State Rep.by Its

Mr.P.Kannan, Vs M/S Ceaars Specialty Foods

Rajaram, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

M.S. Suresh Kumar Vs T.J. Kavitha