Disposed

Thirumeni, v. M. Abirami

Madras HC1 Apr 2016CRL OP/7250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that quashing domestic violence proceedings was unnecessary as a counter was filed and the petition appeared to be a delay tactic. Instead, the Court directed the lower court to dispose of the case within three months and considered dispensing with personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the lower court to dispose of D.V.No.26 of 2014 within three months.

Thirumeni, Vs M. Abirami — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7250 of 2016
and Crl.M.P.No.3779 and 3780 of 2016
1.Thirumeni
2.S.Murugan
3.K.Mageswari .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.Abirami
2.Meganathan .. Respondents
Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in D.V.No.26 of 2014 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramesh
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this petition to call
for the records in D.V.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶6

2.The first respondent as a complainant has filed a petition in D.V.No.26 of 2014 on 30.04.2014 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act claiming return of Sridhana jewels, restraining the first defendant/second respondent herein to get second marriage under Section 18(G) of the Domestic Violence Act and other reliefs. On 07.05.2014 summons were issued to the respondents, namely, the petitioners 1 to 3 and the second respondent herein and the petitioners have appeared before the Trial Court. Now, the petitioners/respondents 2, 3 and 5 have come forward with this petition to quash the petition in D.V.No.26 of 2014.

¶7

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the typed set of papers.

¶8

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

¶9

4.A perusal of the records shows that counter has already been filed by the first respondent/second respondent herein and the same has also been adopted by the respondents 2 and 3, namely, the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Therefore, the present petition has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings. Hence, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings in D.V.No.26 of 2014.

¶10

5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for early disposal of the case in D.V.No.26 of 2014. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that instead of quashing the proceedings, a direction may be issued for early disposal of the case. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of the case in D.V.No.26 of 2014 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further sought for dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore is also directed to consider the petition filed by the petitioners to dispense with their personal appearance.

¶12

7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶13

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar cse To

¶14

The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.7250 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3779 and 3780 of 2016

¶16

NM (CO) kk 26/4

¶17

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

Thirumeni, v. M. Abirami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirumeni, v. M. Abirami

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

A.Annamalai Vs State Rep by

Omprakash Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Ilavarasan, S/O.Ramasamy Vs Sudha, W/O.Ilavarasan

Mrs.Shaipunnisha Vs Nazeema Begum

The Inspector of Police Vs Sin Hyeon Cheon

Sri. A.K. Tajudeen, Vs the Commissioner of Police