Allowed

Thulasiammal v. State Rep by

Madras HC27 Apr 2016CRL OP/9788/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 152 of 2014 against the petitioners after the second respondent no objection to quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C. No. 152 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, in respect of the petitioners alone were quashed.

Thulasiammal Vs State Rep by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9788 of 2016

¶6

1.Thulasiammal 2.Sundaresan 3.Udaya ... Petitioners/Accused 2 to 4 Vs

¶7

1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, All Women Station, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.09 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Suguna ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District and quash the entire proceedings insofar as the petitioners.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

It is seen that the alleged offences attributed against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent appeared in person and their identification is also verified by this Court and the second respondent has no serious objection to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the nature of allegation and also considering the submission of the second respondent, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the trial to proceed with. Therefore, the entire proceedings inC.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, in respect of the petitioners alone is, hereby, quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶17

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Station,
Cheyyar,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.N.Mohideen Basha Advocate sr.26455/16
Crl.O.P.No.9788 of 2016

¶18

pvs(co) aa30/05/2016

¶19

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

Thulasiammal v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulasiammal v. State Rep by

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

K.Manimaran Vs G.Sarangapani

P.Mani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

L.Selvaraj Vs Mr.Vetrivendan

Shaik Mubarak Vs the Inspector of Police

Aleem Basha Vs Smt.M.Faaiza Samreen

S.Murugammal Vs the State Rep. by Its