Partly allowed

M. Duraisamy v. Eraniyammal

Madras HC26 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/20298/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners 3 to 9, identified as relatives of the second wife who did not share the matrimonial household. The court allowed the petition partly, holding that allowing proceedings against these specific individuals would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed against petitioners 3 to 9; Petitioners 1 and 2 directed to face prosecution with limited court appearances.

M. Duraisamy Vs Eraniyammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl. OP (MD)No.20298 of 2013 and MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

1.M.Duraisamy

2.P.Shanthi

3.Perumal

4.Tamilarasi

5.Palanivelu

6.Chandrasamy

7.Packiyam

8.Subramani

9.Pappathi ... Petitioners

¶16

Vs.

¶17

Eraniyammal ... Respondent

¶18

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records relating to the case in D.V.No.07/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai and quash all further proceedings against the petitioners.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent : No appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners have filed this Criminal Original Petition for quashing the proceedings in D.V.No.07/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai. Though the respondent/complainant has been served and her name has been printed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the cause list, she has not chosen to entered appearance through counsel or in person. It is seen that the first petitioner is the

¶22

¶23

husband while the second petitioner is the second wife of the first petitioner. As regards the other petitioners they are only relatives of the second petitioner and they had at no point of time shared the matrimonial household.

¶24

2.This Court is therefore of the view that allowing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners 3 to 9 can only amount to abuse of legal process. In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings stand quashed insofar as the petitioners 3 to 9 are concerned. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein shall face the impugned prosecution. This Court directs that the trial magistrate shall insist on the appearance of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein only for answering the charges and at the time of examination of witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.PC and at the time of pronouncing judgement. Except the aforesaid occasions, on other hearing dates the petitioners 1 and 2 can be permitted to be represented through counsel.

¶25

3.Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Consequently,

¶26

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) To

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Kulithalai.

¶31

+1CC to Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocate in SR.No.63841. SKM

¶32

DS/RP/SAR-3 :01.08.2018: 2P/3C

¶33

Crl. OP (MD)No.20298 of 2013 and MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 26.04.2018

¶34

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

M. Duraisamy v. Eraniyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Duraisamy v. Eraniyammal

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

Kannan, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Malathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kathiravan, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Pamara Granites, Vs Mr.S.Rajaram Mohanraj

Parvathi Vs v.Shyam Sundar

Lieutenant Colonel S.Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police