Allowed

N.Mohan @ Madhaiyan v. Aishwary Pathi

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRL OP/26208/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash private complaints. The court found no specific allegations against the petitioners, merely to cause mental agony, and quashed proceedings against them while allowing the case against accused 1-3 to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The complaints in C.C.No.3879 of 2017 and C.C.No.211 of 2018 are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

N.Mohan @ Madhaiyan Vs Aishwary Pathi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL.O.P.Nos. 26208 and 26576 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.15058 and 15307 of 2018

¶7

1.N.Mohan

¶8

2.Rathna

¶9

3.N.Kanakaraj

¶10

4.Premaa

¶11

5.N.Selvaraj

¶12

6.Vemala

¶13

...Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26208/2018

¶14

1.T.R.Sundaram

¶15

2.Renuga

¶16

...Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26576/2018 Versus

¶17

Aishwary Pathi

¶18

...Respondent in both petitions

¶19

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to the Criminal case in C.C.No.3879 of 2017 and C.C.No.211 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

¶20

For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26208/2018 : Mr.A.Saravanan For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26576/2018 : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶21

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶24

For Respondent in both petitions : Mr.V.Ayyapparaj for M/s.R.Bharathkumar

¶25

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶26

These petitions have been filed to call for the records in

¶27

C.C.No.3879 of 2017 and C.C.No.211 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam and quash the same. The petitioners in CC.No.3879 of 2017 are A.9 to A.14 and the petitioners in CC.No.211/2018 are A.7 and A.8.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that it is alleged by the defacto

¶29

complainant that she got married to A1 and she was subjected to cruelty and thereafter they got separated and the 1^st accused filed H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore for divorce against the complainant and the complainant also filed H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2014, on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said H.M.O.Ps, is is alleged that A1 has contracted a second married with one Vivitha (A4). Hence, the defacto complainant has filed a private complaints in C.C.No.3879 of 2017 and C.C.No.211 of 2018 before the Trial Court against her husband and 13

¶30

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶33

others, for quashing which, the present petitioners are before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶35

that originally A4 did not marry A1 and further that, she has not stated anything about the date and place of the 2^nd marriage and failed to produce any documents that the marriage was conducted or assisted by the petitioners and therefore, a false complaint has been initiated. Further in the complaint no allegations have been made against the petitioners with regard

¶36

to cheating, harassment, and criminal intimidation. Hence prays for quashment of the impugned private complaint against the petitioners herein.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted

¶38

that the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to raise all the grounds before the Court and the same shall be considered on

¶39

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶42

its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶43

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶44

A perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant, except mentioning the relationship of the petitioners in the complaint, did not mention anything about the cruelty or harassment caused by them to the complainant. The entire allegations are levelled only against the accused 1 to 3. There is no specific allegations against the petitioners herein to implicate them in the complaint. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there being no specific allegation against the petitioners and only with a view to cause mental agony to the petitioners, they have been roped into the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made against the petitioners and hence, this Court is inclined to quash the complaint against the petitioners.

¶45

Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and

¶46

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶49

the complaints in C.C.No.3879 of 2017 and C.C.No.211 of 2018 on the file

¶50

of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

06.10.2021

¶52

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No sk

¶53

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

CRL.O.P.No.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶56

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶57

¶58

CRL.O.P.Nos.26576 and 26208 of 2018

¶59

06.10.2021

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

N.Mohan @ Madhaiyan v. Aishwary Pathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mohan @ Madhaiyan v. Aishwary Pathi

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

Khaja Mydeen Vs the Intelligence Officer

K.Chandran Vs State Rep by

Madhesh Vs Inspector of Police

Pyarelal Jain Vs State by

K.S.Krishnamoorthy Vs the State Rep. by

Kandasamy Vs the Iop Pawps Salem