Partly allowed

Balakrishnan v. Devasena

Madras HC8 Mar 2022CRL OP/13905/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC. It quashed domestic violence proceedings against 10 petitioners (mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, etc.) due to lack of specific allegations, while dismissing the quashing request against the husband (first petitioner).

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in D.V.C.No.13 of 2016 against Petitioners 2 to 12 were quashed; proceedings against the first petitioner (husband) were dismissed.

Balakrishnan Vs Devasena — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13905 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7102 of 2016

¶6

1.Balakrishnan

¶7

2.Pavathal

¶8

3.Duraisamy

¶9

4.Gunasekar

¶10

5.Santhi

¶11

6.Aravind

¶12

7.Easwari

¶13

8.Subramaniam

¶14

9.Vasanthi

¶15

10.Sasikalavathy

¶16

11.Shanmugasundaram 12.Paramasivam ...Petitioners

¶17

Vs.

¶18

Devasena ...Respondent

¶19

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records in D.V.C.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.E.P.Senniyagiri

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed to call for records in D.V.C.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani and quash the same.

¶24

2.The petitioners filed this application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani alleging commission of domestic violence by the petitioners. The perusal of domestic incidence report shows that respondent's husband, mother-in-law, junior uncle, four sisters-in-law have all committed verbal and emotional abuse. Her husband has not provided anything to her and thus committed economic abuse along with other petitioners. It is also alleged that there were other dowry related harassments committed by the petitioners. On the insistence of petitioners, respondent had to part with 79 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.2,00,000/- cash and household articles worth Rs.1.50 lakhs/-. It is also claimed that petitioners demanded Rs.6,00,000/- for repairing the house which was in bad shape. Her husband is addicted to alcohol and sold 25 sovereigns of gold jewels. Rest were taken by her mother-in-law. Thus, the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶25

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that first petitioner is husband and second petitioner is mother-inlaw and P3 to P12 are husband's relatives. P3 to P12 were falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the present petition for quashing the proceedings.

¶26

4.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioners have committed verbal and emotional abuse, economic abuse and dowry related harassment, therefore, the complaint was given. He prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶27

5.Considered rival submissions and perused the records.

¶28

6.It is seen from the domestic incidence report that, the major allegations were made only against the husband of the respondent, who is the first petitioner in this petition. It is specifically alleged that he is a drunkard, used to harass the respondent and sold her jewels, committed verbal and emotional abuse. The allegation against the other petitioners are only general in nature. There are no specific allegations made against petitioners 2 to 12. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against petitioners 2 to 12 is an abuse process of law.

¶29

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

¶30

7.In this view of the matter, this petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 12 in D.V.C.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, is quashed. Petition filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, in respect of the first petitioner is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

¶37

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.

¶38

2.Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode District.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.EP.Senniyangiri, Advocate SR.No.16344

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.13905 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7102 of 2016

¶41

KK(CO) CB(24/03/2022)

¶42

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

Balakrishnan v. Devasena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan v. Devasena

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

T.C.Harinath Vs the Inspector of Police

B. Jaikumar Vs the State Rep. by

Kishor Kharat Vs Superintendent of Police

Tamil Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Muthusamy Vs the State

M.Devi Vs Pradeepa