Dismissed

Poonimadevi v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC8 Nov 2021CRL OP/28317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC against a charge sheet for atrocities under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the Court held that serious allegations require trial scrutiny and are not for quashing petitions. The petition was dismissed, dispensing with personal appearance except for charges reading, Section 313 CrPC, and judgment date.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet was dismissed; personal appearance dispensed with except for charges reading, Section 313 CrPC, and judgment date.

Poonimadevi Vs the State Rep. by Its — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 08.11.2021

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.28317 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.16464 of 2018

¶6

Poonimadevi

¶7

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

¶9

The State rep by its

¶10

Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode North, Erode District. Crime No.137 of 2018

¶11

Vijaya Lakshmi

¶12

(R2 is impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.No.16928/18 in Crl.O.P.No.28317/18 dated 13.12.2018)

¶13

...Respondents/Complainant

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet filed in S.P.S.C.No.100 of 2018 on the file of the District Sessions Court (Special Court in SC/ST Cases) Erode, Erode District and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan

¶16

For Respondents: R1 – Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for Public Prosecutor

¶17

R2 – Notice unserved

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner for the offence under section 3[1] [r] [s] SC/ST [POA] Amendment Act, 2015 in SPSC.No.100 of 2018 on the file of the District Session Court, Erode.

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioner that the defacto complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner herein and the entire case has been falsely implicated against her due to family dispute. The further contention of the petitioner is that witnesses 1 to 3 examined by the police in fact do not support any such occurrence. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the entire case of the prosecution has to quashed.

¶22

It is to be noted that though the relationship of the petitioner and the defacto complainant is very close, a perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the parties are not residing in the same house from the very inception. When serious allegations of abuse and attrocities are said to have been committed on a member of a Scheduled Caste, whether such allegations are proved or not, is not the matter to be decided in a petition filed to quash the proceedings and the same is matter of evidence before the trial Court. When prima facie materials are available on record and serious allegations are pressed into service, the same has to be decided at the time of trial. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. It is well open to the petitioner to take all the defence before the trial Court.

¶23

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Taking note of the nature of the complaint, the personal appearance of the parties shall be dispensed with, except for receiving copies, for answering the charges, for questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed .

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

vrc

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The District Sessions Court

¶31

(Special Court in SC/ST Cases),

¶32

Erode, Erode District.

¶33

The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode North Police Station,

¶34

Erode North,

¶35

Erode District.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.28317 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.16464 of 2018

¶38

SVI(CO) SU(01/12/2021)

¶39

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

Poonimadevi v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonimadevi v. the State Rep. by Its

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

Mrs.E.S.M.Ahamed Mariyam Vs M/s.Ps Srijan Developers LLP

Mr. K.R. Appavoo Vs Kapilgupta

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, Vs M/s. Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory

Prabakaran Vs State by

P.Kumaran Vs B.Govindaraj

Natesa Thamilarvan Vs the State Represented by