Quashed

M.Premsakthi v. State by

Madras HC23 Jan 2020CRL OP/28414/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was allowed. The Court quashed the proceedings after finding a post-registration settlement and noting that the complainant had married another person, rendering the trial unsustainable against the petitioner. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.3003 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, are quashed, and any connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

M.Premsakthi Vs State by — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.28414 of 2013

¶6

1.M.Premsakthi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. State by Inspector of Police,
W-17 All Women Police Station,
Peravallur, Chennai – 82.
(Cr.No.1/2009)
2. V.Kavitha ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.3003 of 2010 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarathinam

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.T.S.Rajmohan for R2 O R D E R

¶11

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.3003 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.

¶12

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the sister – in – law of the second respondent/ defacto complainant and she is arrayed as the fourth accused in the case in C.C.No.3003 of 2010. The marriage between the second respondent and the petitioner's brother was solemnized on 08.02.2007 and from the date of marriage, the second respondent and the petitioner's brother were living along with the parents of the petitioner in Kolathur. On 06.03.2009, the second respondent preferred a complaint alleging that her father – in – law and mother – in – law along with her husband demanded a sum

¶13

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

¶14

of Rs.2 Lakhs and house site and tortured her. Based on the complaint, the case came to be registered. Thereafter, the matter was compromised and the second respondent received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the petitioner's brother. Even thereafter, the law enforcing agency filed the charge sheet. Challenging on the said ground the present petition has been filed.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the defacto complainant received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the petitioner's brother, before filing of charge sheet and wrote a letter to that effect to the law enforcing agency, the law enforcing agency filed the charge sheet, which is un-sustainable one. He would further submit that the second respondent has married some other person and is now living happily. Hence, forcing the petitioner to face the trial is un-sustainable one.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

5.Admittedly, the petitioner is the sister – in – law of the second respondent/ defacto complainant. During the pendancy of this petition, the second respondent has married some other person and is now living happily. Further, it appears that the second respondent/ defacto complainant has received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the petitioner's brother as one time settlement. There is also no allegation against the petitioner. Hence, forcing the petitioner to face trial is un-sustainable one.

¶18

6.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3003 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

¶19

s/dAssistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

pri

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶24

The Inspector of Police, W-17 All Women Police Station, Peravallur, Chennai – 82. (Cr.No.1/2009)

¶25

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
+1 CC to Mr.R.Rajarathinam, Advocate sr 4649.
Crl.O.P.No.28414 of 2013
EV(CO)
SP(13/02/2020)

¶26

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

M.Premsakthi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Premsakthi v. State by

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

K.Gnanasambandham Vs C.Sasi

C.R.Sivasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Maragadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. Vs T.Kesavan

K.Amutha Priya Vs Susheela Kumar

P.R.Sriram Vs the Inspector of Factories

P.Prabhu Vs the Inspector of Police