Dismissed

Ashik, M/AGE-31 Years v. State Represented by Its

Madras HC11 May 2017CRL OP/9248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that as the complaint requires evidence appreciation and no protection order was passed, no penal action is invited. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Personal appearance of petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with.

Ashik, M/AGE-31 Years Vs State Represented by Its — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

Crl.O.P. No. 9248 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl. O.P. No.9248 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4780 of 2016 and 7715 of 2018

¶7

1.P.Jayaprakash

¶8

2.P.Kala

¶9

3.P.Gomathi

4.P.Divya

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Protection Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Villupuram District.

¶14

2.Nithyapriya

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in D.V.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) for R1

¶18

Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.S.Sathish Kumar for R2

¶19

https://www.mh c.tn.gov.in/jud is

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

Crl.O.P. No. 9248 of 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act making all the family members as respondents.

¶24

The crux of the allegation in the complaint is that the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members. Therefore, she sought for return of jewels and also for future maintenance.

¶25

This Court is of the view that as the petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act to find out whether any domestic violence is made against the respondent committed by the petitioners, it requires appreciation of evidence and it cannot be gone into at this stage. It is to be seen only after the evidence is adduced before the Trial Court. Further there is no Protection order whatsoever passed by the Trial Court to invite the penal action as against the petitioners. Accordingly, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall take into consideration of all other previous F.I.Rs filed by the defacto complainant and dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible on merits.

¶26

https://www.mh c.tn.gov.in/jud is

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

Crl.O.P. No. 9248 of 2017

¶29

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on any other date as may be required by the trial Court.

¶30

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶31

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

14.12.2021

¶33

(2/3)

¶34

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No msv/nr

¶35

¶36

1.The Protection Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Villupuram District.

¶37

The Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi.

¶38

https://www.mh c.tn.gov.in/jud is

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

Crl.O.P. No. 9248 of 2017

¶41

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. msv/nr

¶42

Crl. O.P. No.9248 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4780 of 2016 and 7715 of 2018

¶43

14.12.2021

¶44

https://www.mh c.tn.gov.in/jud is

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Ashik, M/AGE-31 Years v. State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashik, M/AGE-31 Years v. State Represented by Its

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

Jayapal, M/30 Years Vs State Rep.by

S.Sreekanth, Vs Jayakumar

Surendira Babu, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Station House Officer

Ramesh, M/Aged About 40 Yrs, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

T. S. Rajamani, 65 Yrs, Vs Police E1 Police Station

Smt.Jebamani, F/A-40 Years Vs the State Rep.by Its