Dismissed

Palayam, Age 68 Years, v. Mrs. Kalpana

Madras HC10 Mar 2022CRL OP/23753/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act is not maintainable, following a specific precedent. The petition was dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; the underlying Domestic Violence complaint was not quashed.

Palayam, Age 68 Years, Vs Mrs. Kalpana — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.23753 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.M.P.Nos.11291 and 11292 of 2016

¶7

1.Palayam 2.Santhi

¶8

¶9

Mrs.Kalpana ... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in D.V.C.No.174 of 2016 on the file of Judge, Additional Mahila ourt, Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : No representation

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to D.V.C.No.174 of 2016 on the file of Additional Mahila ourt, Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai. and quash the same

¶14

When the matter was taken up on 03.03.2022, there was no representation on both sides and therefore, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption "for dismissal. Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh, in a batch of Crl.O.Ps, issued a series of directions with regard to cases filed under Domestic Violence Act and finally held that the petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable.

¶15

This Court, in view of the Judgment in Crl.O.P.Nos.28458, 16411 of 2019 etc., batch dated 18.01.2021 reported in (2021) 2 CTC 57 (P.Pathmanathan and others vs V. Monica and others) finds that the petition to quash filed in

¶16

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

¶17

this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and dismiss the Crl.O.P.No.23753 of 2016. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

¶24

The Judge, Additional Mahila ourt, Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.23753 of 2016

¶26

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

¶27

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

Palayam, Age 68 Years, v. Mrs. Kalpana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palayam, Age 68 Years, v. Mrs. Kalpana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manivannan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.Dakshinamurthy Vs State Rep by

Devaki Vs State Rep by

N. Ganesh Vs the Union Territory of

P.v.Arumugam Vs State Rep. by

Padmavathy Vs Pushpavathi