Remanded

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

Madras HC9 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/6100/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashment of domestic violence proceedings. It held that the Magistrate is competent to decide via opinion whether the petitioners are necessary parties and returned the matter for such determination.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Magistrate to decide whether petitioners are necessary parties before passing any orders.

M.S. Suresh Kumar Vs T.J. Kavitha — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6100 of 2014

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶9

1.M.S.Sureshkumar 2.M.K.Subramanian 3.M.S.Usha 4.T.P.S.Poornima

¶10

... Petitioners / Accused

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

T.J.Kavitha

¶13

... Respondent / Petitioner

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to the case in Cr.M.P.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kannan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to the case in Cr.M.P.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai

¶28

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr. M.KANNAN,Advocate in SR.No. 22064

¶30

mpk

¶31

TS/23.04.2014/2P-4c

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6100 of 2014

¶33

09.04.2014

¶34

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

B.Murugadoss Vs Chithra