2.1. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the defacto Complainant had improved her version by incriminating her father-in-law as though he committed rape on her, at this stage the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed orders that this case had to be tried by the Sessions Court. Therefore, for framing of charges sent to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Chennai. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that originally the complaint was filed under the Provisions of Domestic Violence Act, subsequently, the case was registered under Section 4 of the TNPWH Act. The Petitioners before this Court are the husband and parents of the Husband stated that in each stage of the investigation and before the learned trial Judge, deposition of the defacto Complainant had improved her version. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had referred the case to learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court. At the time of occurrence, father-in-law is aged about 80 years had to face the charges under Section 376 of IPC and now he is aged 90 and he was taken on stretcher to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate during trial for the offence under Section 4 of the TNPWH Act. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the charge sheet is to be quashed.
