Dismissed

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Dec 2021CRL OP/25079/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Special Leave Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet in a criminal case. The court held that prima facie materials, particularly evidence from a doctor regarding induced miscarriage and cheating, were sufficient to send the matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Qiash of proceedings in C.C.No.215 of 2017 denied; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 22.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.25079 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.14442 & 6925 of 2017

¶8

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj S/o.Late Samuvel Manohar Raj

¶9

Lalitha Laxmi Samuvel W/o.Late Samuvel Manohar Raj ...Petitioners/Accused Versus

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, W-1, All Women Police Station,

¶11

Thousand Lights,

¶12

Chennai - 600 006. ...1st Respondent/Complainant

¶13

S. Anisha ...2nd Respondent/ De facto Complainant

¶14

PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.215 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Lilly Pond, Chennai-600 003.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Rekha Kumari

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate(Crl. side) for R1

¶17

: Mr.K.Thenrajan for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.215 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Chennai.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the first accused developed contact with the de facto complainant when the earlier marriage of the de facto complainant with her husband was subsisting and marriage between the first accused and the de facto complainant was conducted at home in front of the family members and the de facto complainant parted with jewels and paid

¶21

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

¶22

substantial amount. During her relationship with A1, she also became pregnant. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the first accused caused miscarriage with the help of A2 and also made a threat resulting in the registration of the First Information Report.

¶23

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire case is a false case and there cannot be any marriage when the divorce proceedings between the husband and wife are pending at the relevant point of time. It is his further contention that the alleged miscarriage is also highly improbable and cannot be believed and hence, seeks to quash the entire proceedings.

¶24

On a perusal of the entire materials, this court is of the view that the prosecution has unearthed certain materials, particularly evidence has been collected from the doctor, who is said to have conducted the miscarriage. The prima facie materials available against the accused indicate that the case has to see its logical end in the trial Court. Though the marriage alleged by the de facto complainant may not be legally valid, the fact remains that the allegations are pressed into the service as if they were living as husband and wife and A2 helped A1 and both of them have cheated the amount runs to several lakhs. When there are prima facie materials to frame the charges, I am not inclined to quash the final report at this stage. All the materials placed before this Court at the best could be used by the petitioners before the trial Court to prove the conduct of the de facto complainant. Therefore, at this stage this Court cannot assume the role of the trial Court to appreciate the evidence and give a finding that the entire proceedings are false. An appreciation of evidence is in the domain of the trial Court.

¶25

In such view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to raise all their legal defences before the trial Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

gpa/gba

¶30

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

¶31

To 1. The Judge, The Additional Mahila Court, Lilly Pond, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Inspector of Police, W-1, All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006. 3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai – 104 +1cc to Mr.Thenrajan, Advocate, S.R.No.69662 +1cc to M/s.C.Rekha Kumari, Advocate, S.R.No.69240 Crl.O.P.No.25079 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.14442 & 6925 of 2017

¶32

MG(CO) RGA(06/01/2022)

¶33

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

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmanuvel Vasantharaj, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs Vs State Rep. by

S.Gajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Akilandeswari Vs Inspector of Police

G.Gokul, Vs State Rep by

M/S.Pavans Hall Mark Testing Vs Bureau of Indian Standards

Thiru.Jayanthilal Surana, M/a Vs the State of Tamilnadu