The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings for dowry harassment and cruelty. Upholding the Family Court's divorce decree where the petitioner was absent, the Court held a prima facie case exists and refused to interfere.
The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 12.12.2019 Delivered on: 03.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.No.26606 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14228 and 14229 of 2019
P.Naveen Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Puducherry – 1. 2.Sheeladevi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.28 of 2016 in Crime No.1 of 2015, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and quash the final report filed against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr. V.Balamurugane, for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) : Mr.S.Murugaboopathi for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed by accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.
1/8
submitted that on 10.05.2010 the second respondent came to the petitioner's house and taken back Sridhana articles and thereafter, the mediation made by the relatives and well wishers did not yield any fruitful result and hence the petitioner had filed MOP.No.343 of 2010 before the Family Court at Puducherry for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. He further submitted that the second respondent did not come forward to lead a marital life and hence the petitioner has allowed the said MOP No.343 of 2010 for dismissal.
2/8
the first respondent on 23.01.2015 and based on the same, an FIR has been registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed and based on the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.28 of 2016 and the same is still pending. He further submitted that already the petitioner's parents have filed Crl.O.P.No.25014 of 2016 to quash the proceedings against them and this Court while quashing the proceedings against them by the order dated 22.04.2019 has observed that the entire allegations are against the petitioner herein and hence, directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and only thereafter, with a view to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition. He further submitted that the materials collected by the first respondent would clearly show that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
3/8
herein remained absent and was set exparte in the said petition and consequently, the said petition was allowed. So it has to be presumed that the petitioner herein has not denied the allegations made by the second respondent in MOP.No.342 of 2015. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against him.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(C.S.III)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Puducherry – 1.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor(Puducherry)
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.A.Tamilvanan, Advocate SR.No.635
+1cc to Mr.D.Senthil Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.1259
AKM/03.01.2020 /4P-5C/
Judgment in
Crl.O.P.No.26606 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14228 &
14229 of 2019
4/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner given the prima facie case arising from the Family Court decree.
Whether the petitioner's failure to appear in the divorce proceeding implies no contest to the respondent's allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Naveen Kumar
Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Puducherry
Sheeladevi
P. Rajamanickam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
