Dismissed

Mrs.N.Prabha, Aged 26 Years, v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2021CRL OP/6200/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered in a matrimonial dispute. Despite counsel arguing the complaint was motivated to secure a divorce, the court noted allegations of physical injuries and multiple pending related criminal cases. Holding that the investigation could not be quashed merely due to the matrimonial nature of the dispute w

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the FIR in Crime No. 331 of 2015 dismissed; investigation directed to continue.

Mrs.N.Prabha, Aged 26 Years, Vs the Sub-Inspector of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.6200 of 2017

¶6

Mrs.N.Prabha ...Petitioner/Accused 2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District.

¶9

2.Mr.R.K.Naveen Rajkumar

¶10

...Respondents/Complainant/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records relating to the F.I.R in Crime No.331 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Rajendiran

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt.Advocate(crl.side) for R1 R2-No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.331 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent herein mainly on the ground arising out of matrimonial dispute for the offences under Sections 147, 294 (b), 341, 323, 324 of I.P.C.

¶16

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint is nothing but motivated and the second respondent with an intention has filed the said complaint only to get divorce from the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶17

The allegation in the FIR itself indicate that there were physical injuries said to have been caused and the Police Report indicate that there are six other criminal cases which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have already been filed either by husband or wife including

¶18

their family members. Being a family member, one of the case is also pending for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

¶19

Though this court has directed the parties to settle the matter, the parties are at loggerheads. In such view of the matter, FIR cannot be quashed at this stage mainly on the ground of matrimonial dispute, particularly, when physical injuries has been caused. Therefore, the investigation has to reach its logical end. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

msv/nr

¶25

¶26

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶28

Crl. O.P. No.6200 of 2017

¶29

SRA (CO) PR (12/01/2022)

¶30

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

Mrs.N.Prabha, Aged 26 Years, v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.N.Prabha, Aged 26 Years, v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

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

Ramasamy, M/70 Years Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum

S.Kumar (M-36) Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

V.Sivarasu, Vs State Represented by

Sarangapani, 72 Yrs, Vs K.Kalaiselvi, 43 Yrs

S.Palanivel, Aged 40 Years, A1 Vs State by

R.Ramesh, M/a 44 Years, Vs S.Bhavani, F/a 39 Years