Partly allowed

C.Senthil Ganesh, M/a 30 Years v. Manjula

Madras HC11 Dec 2018CRL OP/8951/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash proceedings DVC No.20 of 2017 via u/s 482 CrPC. The Court dismissed the prayer regarding the husband as allegations require trial, but allowed quashment for aged in-laws (Petitioners 2 & 3). The Court directed the lower court to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed insofar as Petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned; dismissed insofar as Petitioner 1 is concerned. Lower court directed to complete proceedings within three months.

C.Senthil Ganesh, M/a 30 Years Vs Manjula — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.8951 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.MP.Nos.4623 & 10710 of 2018

¶8

1.C.Senthil Ganesh 2.S.Chandra Mouli 3.Malliga .. Petitioners/Respondent . Vs . Manjula ..Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in pursuant to DVC No.20 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore, Vellore District and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners: Mr.M.Sathish Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.20 of 2017, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore District.

¶14

2.The respondent has filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking for the relief under Section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, and also seeking for the return of the Sreedhanam articles given at the time of marriage.

¶15

3.The petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the respondent. A reading of the petition filed before the Court below reveals that sufficient allegations have been made against the husband, and therefore there is no ground for this Court to interfere with the proceedings insofar as the husband is concerned. The truth or otherwise of the allegations and several factual issues sought to be raised before this Court, can be agitated by the 1st petitioner only before the Court below and this Court cannot get into the exercise of appreciation of evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

4.Insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned, they are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent. Only general allegations have been made against them and considering their age and the nature of allegations made against them, this Court is of the considered view that they do not need to undergo the ordeal of trial before the Court below.

¶18

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, and shall stand allowed insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned. The Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in DVC No.20 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore District, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KP To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore, Vellore District. +1cc to Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate sr.no.85893 +1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate sr.no.86457 Crl.O.P. No.8951 of 2018 rji(co) nr 26/12/2018

¶20

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

C.Senthil Ganesh, M/a 30 Years v. Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Senthil Ganesh, M/a 30 Years v. Manjula

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

L.Sivaraj, Vs The Commissioner of Police

N.Kannan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandra Sekar, M/a 43 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

D.Karthick, M/34 Vs Tmt.Swarna Bharathi, F/32

N.Govindarajulu Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

T.Mohana Vs the Inspector of Police