Allowed

Ramachandran v. K.Vidya

Madras HC17 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/13292/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a quashal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that filing a domestic violence petition against in-laws who live separately without specific allegations amounted to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.121 of 2016 quashed as against petitioners; Judicial Magistrate directed to dispose remaining proceedings against husband within three months.

Ramachandran Vs K.Vidya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13292 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.10.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13292 of 2017 and CrL.M.P(MD)Nos.8990 & 8991 of 2017

¶7

Ramachandran

¶8

R.Usharani ...Petitioners/Respondents 2 & 3

¶9

Vs.

¶10

K.Vidya ...Respondent/petitioner

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in D.V.O.P.No.121 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court) Madurai and quash all further proceedings so far as against the petitioners are concerned.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.121 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila Court), Madurai, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶15

The first Petitioner is the father-in-law and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent.

¶16

It is seen from the records that the petitioners 1 and 2 are living separately and the respondent is living separately and therefore, no domestic violence can be attributed as against the petitioners 1 and 2. The respondent has not made any specific allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2, except for certain general allegations and certain specific averments have been made by the respondent only against her husband. Even in the absence of a domestic relationship with the respondent, the petitioners 1 and 2 have been roped in a Domestic Violence Petition.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

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

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13292 of 2017

¶21

In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, the entire proceedings is an abuse of process of Court and the same requires interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

In the result, the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.121 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila Court), Madurai, is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. It is left open to the respondent herein to proceed further to prosecute the Domestic Violence Petition as against her husband.

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila Court), Madurai, to dispose of the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.121 of 2016, as against the husband, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

tsg

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Madurai.

¶30

+1CC TO MR.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate Sr. No. 92619

¶31

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13292 of 2017 17.10.2019

¶32

SRK(CO) TR(04.11.2019) 2P 3C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

Ramachandran v. K.Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. K.Vidya

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

S.Dhanalakshmi Alias Rosaline Mary Vs The INspector General of Registration

M.Dhamothiran, Vs The Inspector General of

K.Myilsamy Vs The Regional Deputy Director

T.Vellaisamy Nadar Vs The Inspector General of

C.Panchamoorthy Vs The District Collector

K.B. Rajendran Vs The Sub-Registrar of Assurance