Allowed

Bhuvaneshwari v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Aug 2015CRL OP/33029/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court held that there was no evidence against the petitioners, the accused's mother and sister, who faced none of the substantial allegations. Consequently, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against them while directing the trial to continue against the primary accused.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.192 of 2013 were quashed against the petitioners.

Bhuvaneshwari Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.33029 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.Bhuvaneshwari 2.Mahalakshmi ...Petitioners/Accused Vs 1.The State rep by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Tirukoilur Villupuram District. ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Prabhavathi ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to S.C.No.192 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge Court, Villupuram, Villupuram District and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar For R1 : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl.Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.T.Arockia Das ORDER

¶8

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to S.C.No.192 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge Court, Villupuram, Villupuram District and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶9

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

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant and Sri Ramajayam [A1] were in deep love and that Sri Ramajayam had physical affair with her on the promise of marrying her and thereafter, he reneged. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that, she also conceived once and the fetus was aborted at the instance of Sri Ramajayam [A1]. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint, based on which a case in Cr.No.32 of 2012 was registered by the police and after investigation, Final Report has been filed against Sri Ramajayam [A1], Bhuvaneshwari [A2] and Mahalakshmi [A3]. Bhuvaneshwari [A2] is the mother of Sri Ramajayam and Mahalakshmi is sister of Sri Ramajayam. Bhuvaneshwari and Mahalakshmi are before this Court for quashing the prosecution.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no iota of evidence as against these petitioners herein. This argument was stoutly resisted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

¶13

This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the Final Report and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements. The defacto complainant was 25 years old when she gave the complaint in the year 2012. Even in the FIR, she has stated that she has studied M.Sc., B.A. B.Ed. It is her contention that, Sri Ramajayam [A1] promised to marry her and induced her to have physical affair and thereafter, refused to marry her. There are no allegations worth the salt either in the FIR or in the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements recorded subsequently as against Bhuvaneshwari and Mahalakshmi. It is not stated by the defacto complainant that the mother and sister had in any manner abetted the commission of offence of Sri Ramajayam [A1]. The stray allegations against them is that they are putting spokes into the marriage of Sri Ramajayam [A1] with the defacto complainant.

¶14

In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the prosecution as against Bhuvaneshwari and Mahalakshmi and accordingly, the proceedings in S.C.No.192 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge Court, Villupuram are quashed. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously conduct the trial as against Sri Ramajayam [A1].

¶15

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

¶16

In the result, this petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gms
To
1. Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Tirukoilur,Villupuram District.
2. Additional District Judge Court,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP No.33029 of 2013
SCD (CO)
PSI (10.09.2015)

¶18

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

Bhuvaneshwari v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvaneshwari 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

R.V. Sathyanarayanan Vs the Commissioner

Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vathan Chettiar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Shajahan Vs Sabeena Begum

S.Karthikeyan Vs Pappammal

Yogavathi Vs R.Senthil Kumar