Allowed

Malliga, F/45 Years v. State Rep. by

Madras HC29 Sept 2021CRL OP/20463/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed criminal proceedings under an IPC FIR arising from a family dispute. The court noted the complainant, a renamed family member, and involved petitioners had all disappeared from the jurisdiction, rendering further proceedings unviable despite a prior altercation triggering the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition stands allowed; the further proceedings in CC.No.15/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I are quashed.

Malliga, F/45 Years Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.OP.No.20463/2016 & Crl.MP.No.9553/2016

¶6

[Video Conferencing]

¶7

1.Malliga 2.Sathiya 3.Muthu 4.Prasad

... Petitioners

Versus

1.State Rep.

By the Sub Inspector of Police, B-1, Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

2.Nithiya

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.15/2016 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Arun Kumar For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No appearance

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(1) There is no representation on behalf of the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant. It is only understandable since the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the 1^st petitioner herein. Various differences happened, since the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant had remarried after the death of her husband and this led to a complaint being lodged before the 1^st respondent police who also registered a FIR in Crime No.63/2015 on 10.02.2015 as against the petitioners herein under Sections 341, 294[b], 323, 355, 506[i] IPC on 03.03.2014.

¶18

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

¶19

(2) It is the case of the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant that when she was proceeding from Annasagaram to Dharmapuri Town to buy grocery, the petitioners herein had asked the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant to get into the vehicle in which they were travelling and when she refused, she was abused and the offences attracting the provisions under the aforesaid sections appeared to have been committed. The petitioners are doing cooliee work in the locality. The 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the 1^st petitioner/A1. There had been some altercation owing, as aforesaid, to the fact that the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant had remarried after the death of her husband/son of the 1^st petitioner herein/A1.

¶20

(3) Keeping this petition on the file of this Court would be no avail to either the petitioners herein or the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant.

¶21

(4) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor's assistance was sought to find out the status of CC.No.15/2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri.

¶22

(5) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent orally informed that in spite of best efforts, the 1^st respondent police was not able to locate either the petitioners herein /A1 to A3 or the 2^nd respondent herein / defacto complainant. They all seem to have left.

¶23

(6) As stated, a quarrel among family members had occurred. But, it should not reach the Police Station and should not reach the Court.

¶24

(7) I find good reason to interfere with the further proceedings in CC.No.15/2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri.

¶25

(8) In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the further proceedings in CC.No.15/2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri, is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate-I,

¶33

Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶34

The Sub Inspector of Police, B-1, Police Station, Dharmapuri,

¶35

Dharmapuri District.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

Crl.OP.No.20463/2016

¶38

GPL (CO) K.RK. (12.10.2021)

¶39

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

Malliga, F/45 Years v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malliga, F/45 Years v. State Rep. 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

C.Perumal Vs v.S.Manian

Jayaprakash Babu Kodimi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Rajasekaran Vs the State by the

Sekar Vs Marimuthu

Sudha Vs State by

Niamadullah Vs the Inspector of Police