Allowed

Pazhani, M/Aged 55 (A2) v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Dec 2021CRL OP/29082/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash a charge sheet filed against four petitioners accused of various offences including 498A and 355 IPC. The court held that the allegations were insufficient to constitute an offence as the grievance was primarily against the husband.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.236 of 2017 against petitioners for offences under Sections 498A, 355, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. is quashed.

Pazhani, M/Aged 55 (A2) Vs State Rep. by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.29082 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NO.16423 OF 2017

¶6

Pazhani

¶7

Viji, W/o.Pazhani

¶8

Vijiyalakshmi

¶9

Viji, S/o.Munuswami

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

¶12

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvanmalai.

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.236 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvanmalai and quash the proceedings against the petitioners / Accused No.2 to 5.

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.236 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvanmalai against the petitioners for the

¶15

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

¶16

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 355, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C.

¶17

The crux of the allegation is that A1 and the defacto complainant befriended and married on 19.01.2016 and started living in the defacto complainant's sister's house. Thereafter, A1 threatened her family and left the defacto complainant and did not come back to the defacto complainant. When defacto complainant went to A1's home to question the same on 30.01.2016, the accused abused her and A3 appears to have stated that others are ready to give 50 sovereigns gold, whereas she has lured A1 and the petitioners also abused her. Thereby, committed the offences.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the prosecution had filed the final report, these petitioners have been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute. The only allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant went to the house of A1 and the present petitioners allegedly had abused her except that there is no material for causing it.

¶19

Heard both sides. Perused the entire records.

¶20

The materials unearthed by the prosecution clearly indicate that the defacto complainant fell in love and married the first accused without the consent of the petitioners and they were residing in the defacto complainant's sister's house. As a result, the defacto complainant became pregnant and thereafter, A1 did not return back. When she went to the A1's house, these petitioners allegedly abused her. Except the allegation of abuse, there are no allegations attributed against the petitioners. The entire allegations clearly indicate that the main grievance is only against A1 who appears to be the husband of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant met these petitioners only on 30.10.2016 and prior to that, there is no contact between them. Considering the entire materials even taken as a face value, the same are not sufficient to constitute any offence against the petitioners. In such view of the matter, proceeding against the petitioners is nothing but futile exercise.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in C.C.No.236 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvanmalai against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

¶22

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

¶23

355, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

vrc / kbs

¶29

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvanmalai.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvanmalai.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.29082 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.16423 of 2017

¶34

JPL(CO) RLP(12/01/2022)

¶35

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

Pazhani, M/Aged 55 (A2) v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhani, M/Aged 55 (A2) 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

Manoj, Vs Sivakami

B.Sridhar, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

Srinivasu, Aged 50 Years, Vs State Rep. by

P.Selvakumar, Aged 34 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Prasad Vs Inspector of Police

C.Karthick, M/a 33 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police